L  L  B  l=i  ^  R  Y 


Theological     Seminary 

PRINCETON,     N.    J. 


Shrl 
Buo, 


BV    220    .P72    1876 

The  Prayer-gauge  debate 


f 


THE 


PRAYER-GAUGE  DEBATE. 


BY 


PROF.  TYNDALL,  FRANCIS  GALTON, 

AND    OTHERS, 


DR.  LITTLEDALE,  PRESIDENT  McCOSH, 

THE  DUKE  OF  ARGYLL,  CANON  LYDDON,  AND 

"THE  SPECTATOR." 


BOSTON : 
CONGREGATIONAL   PUBLISHING   SOCIETY, 

EEACOX   STREET. 

1876. 


COPYRIttHT. 

CONGREGATIONAL    PUBLISHING    SOCIETT. 

1875. 


BOSTON  : 

8TEKE0TVPKI)  HY  C.  J.  I'ETF.RS  AND  SON, 

73  FKUKRAL  BTUICKT. 

Press  of  Rand,  A  very,  (Sr"  Co. 


I]^TRODXJOTORY. 


In  the  month  of  July,  1872,  "The  London  Contemporary 
Review"  published  a  paper,  entitled  "The  Prayer  for  the 
Sick :  Hints  towards  a  Serious  Attempt  to  estimate  its 
Value."  Prof.  John  T^-ndall  fathered  it  with  an  Introduc- 
tion, while  disavowing  the  authorship.  His  name,  and  not 
any  intrinsic  novelty  or  merit  in  the  thing  itself,  gave  signifi- 
cance and  notoriety  to  it. 

The  succeeding  numbers  of  The  Review  contained  re- 
plies, which  were  followed  b^'-  rejoinders  from  Prof.  Tyndall 
and  his  disguise.  Other  magazines  entered  the  lists. 
Francis  Galton  marshalled  the  doughty  columns  of  statis- 
tical tables,  to  support  Mr.  Tyndall,  in  "The  Fortnightly 
Review."  For  weeks  the  great  newspapers  of  London  were 
loaded  with  editorials  upon  the  Praj-er-Gauge,  and  with 
communications  prepared  by  all  classes  and  conditions  of 
men,  from  a  bookseller's  clerk  to  the  highest  dignitaries  of 
the  English  Church  and  peers  of  the  realm.  The  Praj-er- 
Gauge  Debate  was  the  sensation  of  the  season. 

The  question  in  dispute  was  not  the  question  of  a  season, 
however,  but  of  all  time.  The  objections  to  the  efficacy  of 
prajer  were  none  of  them  new,  and  never  will  be  old.  They 
have  come  up  afresh  with  every  sun-rising  since  Cain  dis- 

3 


4  Introductory. 

puted  with  Abel ;  and  they  will  continue  to  come  up  till  the 
millennium.  It  is  well  for  Christian  believers  to  examine 
them :  it  is  an  advantage  to  look  at  them  in  the  flaming  light 
in  which  scientific  unbelievers  delight  to  exhibit  them.  It 
will  assist  in  establishing  the  truth  to  put  the  objections  in 
their  strongest  array,  face  to  face  with  the  answers  which 
the  Christian  intelligence  of  the  day  has  given. 

Those  who  followed  the  discussion  at  the  time  in  "The 
Contemporar}' Review,"  "  Fortnightly  Review,"  and  "The 
Spectator,"  will  welcome  a  volume  containing,  in  orderly 
arrangement,  all  the  articles  which  touched  the  substance  of 
the  dispute ;  while  the  greater  number  who  have  not  seen 
the  English  publications,  and  know  them  onl}'  by  hearsay, 
will  be  glad  to  read  and  weigh  these  papers  for  themselves. 
They  are  worth  preserving ;  for  they  exhibit  principles  and 
methods  of  reasoning  of  permanent  value. 

We  reprint,  in  the  order  in  which  the}'  appeared,  the  arti- 
cles from  the  two  reviews,  for  and  against  this  Christian 
doctrine,  with  editorials  from  "The  Spectator,"  and  selec- 
tions from  the  communications  of  correspondents.  Of 
course,  we  assume  no  responsibility  as  to  the  substance  or 
expression  of  the  arguments  on  either  side. 

JOHN  O.  MEANS. 


OOE-TEl^TS. 


I. 

THE  PRAYER   FOR   THE    SICK. 
Peof.  Tyndall  and  Sir  Hexry  Thompson  (?). 

Hints  towards  a  Serious  Attempt  to  estimate  its  Value     .       9 

n. 

THE  PROPOSED  PRAYER-GAUGE. 
"The  Spectator." 

1.  Editorial 23 

2.  Correspondence 31 

m. 

THE   RATIONALE    OF   PRAYER. 
Rev.  Richard  Frederick  Littledai-e,  D.C.L.  .        .        .37 

IV. 

STATISTICAL  INQUIRIES  INTO  THE  EFFICACY 

OF   PRAYER. 

Francis  Galton,  F.R.S. 85 

V. 

ON  PRAYER. 

Criticisms  of  Cjritics. 

1.  By  Prof.  Tyndall 109 

2.  By  the  Author  of  "  Hints  towards  a  Serious  Attempt 

to  estinmfc6  the  Value  of  the  '  Prayer  for  the  Sick  '  "  .  116 

3.  By  James  McCosh,  D.D.,  President  of  Princeton  Col- 

lege, United  States 135 

5 


6  Contents. 

VI. 

CAPT.   GALTON    ON   THE   EFFICACY   OF 
PRAYER. 
'•The  Spfxtator." 

1.  Editorial 147 

2.  Comiuunicntions  by  Astlev  Cooper.  Protagtiras.    and 

J.  J.  Murphy 15-3 

YII. 
THE   EFFICACY   OF  PRAYER. 
••The  Spectator." 

1.  Comnnmications  l\v  II..  C.  W.  Stubbs.  E..  E.  P.  W., 

aud  J.  Silvanus 167 

2.  EditoriaL/ 184 

3.  Francis  Galton.  in  reply 191 

4.  John    Macnaughts     C.    AY.     Stnbbs,     A.    Babinglon. 

J.  W.  F..  and  W.  J.    .         .         .         .         .         .         .  195 

5.  M.  M.  G..  and  Editorial '203 

YIII. 

THE   FUNCTION   OF  PRAYER   IN  THE  ECONO- 
MY  OF   THE   UNIYERSE. 
Rev.  William  Kxigut,  Dundee 221 

IX. 
PRAYER. 
The  Two  Spherk?  ;  are  tuky  Two  ? 

Bv  the  ptfke  of  Argyll 253 

X. 

PRAYER   THE    CHARACTERISTIC   ACTION   OF 
^                             RELIGION. 
H.  P.  LiDDOx,  D.D 273 


L 

THE  "PEAYEE  FOE  THE  SICK." 

HINTS  TOWAEDS  A  SERIOUS   ATTEMPT  TO  ESTIMATE 
ITS  VALUE. 


This  is  the  title  of  the  paper  which  started  this  discussion  in 
"The  Contemporary  Review,"  serenth  year,  new  series,  the  number 
for  July,  1ST2,  pp.  20-5-210. 

Strahan  &  Co.  are  the  publishers,  .56  Ludgate  Hill,  London. 

The  authorship,  distinctly  disavowed  by  Mr.  Tyndall,  is  generally 
attributed  to  Sir  Henry  Thompson,  F.  R.  C.  S.,  an  eminent  London 
surgeon,  professor  of  surgery  U.  Coll.  Hospital,  &c.,  author  of  several 
important  medical  works. 

7 


I. 

THE     "PRAYER    FOR    THE     SICK." 

HINTS     TOWARDS     A     SERIOUS     ATTEMPT     TO     ESTIMATE     ITS 
VALUE. 

rpHE  following  suggestive  letter  has  been  placed  in  my 
hands,  with  a  view  to  publication.  It  is  sure,  I  think, 
to  interest  the  thoughtful  readers  of  ' '  The  Contemporary 
Review."  It  deals,  indeed,  with  a  subject  which  interests 
everybody,  and  regarding  which  all  manner  of  men,  from 
the  prime -minister  downwards,  have  given  the  public  tlie 
benefit  of  their  views. 

If  such  be  attainable,  it  is  surel}'  desirable  to  have  clearer 
notions  than  we  now  possess  of  the  action  of  "  Providence" 
in  physical  affairs.  Two  opposing  parties  here  confront 
each  other,  —  the  one  affirming  the  habitual  intrusion  of 
biipernatural  power  in  answer  to  the  petitions  of  men  ;  the 
other  questioning,  if  not  denying,  any  such  intrusion.  The 
writer  of  the  letter  wishes  to  bring  these  opposing  atlirma- 
tions  to  an  experimental  test.  He  considers  the  subject 
to   be    accessible   to   experiment,    and    majvcs  a    proposal, 

y 


lO  The  ^'Prayer  for  the  Skky 

which,  if  faithfully  carried  out,  would,  he  thinks,  displace 
assertion  by  demonstration  as  regards  the  momentous  point 
in  question. 

It  was  justly  stated  by  the  Archbishop  of  York  at  a 
recent  meeting  of  the  supporters  of  the  Palestine  Explo- 
ration Fund,  that  the  progress  of  the  human  mind  is  from 
vagueness  towards  precision.  The  letter  before  us  seems  an 
illustration  of  this  tendenc3\  Instead  of  leaving  the  subject 
to  the  random  assertions  of  half- informed  sceptics  on  the 
oi„3  hand,  and  hazy  lecturers  of  the  Victoria  Institute  on  the 
other,  the  writer  seeks  to  confer  quantitative  precision  on 
the  action  of  the  supernatural  in  Nature.  His  proposal  is 
so  fair,  and  his  mode  of  stating  it  so  able  and  conciliator}', 
that  I  could  not,  when  asked  to  do  so,  refuse  to  give  it  the 
support  implied  by  these  few  lines  of  introduction. 

John  Tyndaj.l. 

Athen^um  Club,  June,  1872. 


Dear  Professor  Tyndall, 
QINCE  our  conversation  the  other  night,  when  you  were 
good  enough  to  listen  to  a  suggestion  I  made  relative  to 
a  means  of  determining  the  value  of  prayer  to  the  Deity, 
it  occurred  to  me  to  put  the  idea  into  writing,  and  to  ask 
you  to  do  me  the  further  kindness  of  looking  at  it  in  this 
shape. 


The  ''Prayer  for  the  Sickr  ii 

It  seems  to  me  impossible,  at  the  present  day,  to  find  our- 
selves in  contact  with  a  source  of  power  available  for  human  i 
ends  (or  aflSrmed  to  be  so  on  high  authority) ,  without  recog- 
nizing a  necessity,  or  even  that  it  is  a  dutj-,  to  estimate 
its  value.  And  especially  if  the  power  be  one  which  is 
effective  for  the  production  of  physical  results,  is  it  desira- 
ble to  examine  its  nature,  and  to  measure  its  extent,  and 
the  conditions  under  which  it  works. 

The  value  of  prayer  to  the  Deity  has  been  recognized  in  ' 
all  ages  and  hy  all  nations,  not  merely  b}'  the  ignorant  and 
superstitious,  but  b}'  the  more  cultivated  portions  of  the 
human  race  ;  and  I  think  it  may  be  said,  that,  among  the 
great  body  of  religious  people  of  all  denominations  in  this 
country,  a  belief  in  its  eflicac}'  is  almost  universally  pro- 
fessed. As  to  the  objects  which  it  is  believed  are  attainable 
by  prayer,  they  are  almost  without  limit  as  to  kind.  Taking 
as  an  authority  that  well-known  compendium,  which  none  will 
dispute  to  be  the  national  epitome  of  English  religious  idea 
on  the  subject,  ''The  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"^  the 
legitimate  objects  of  supplication  to  God  may  be  classified 
as  follows  :  — 

Class  A.  Spiritual  improvement,  moral  superiorit}',  intel- 
lectual power. 

1  Although  not  used  by  Dissenters,  they  do  not  reject  it  on  account 
of  its  contents,  since  its  very  phraseology  i;4  often  eniploj^ed  by  them, 
but,  fc^r  the  most  part,  because  all  forms  are  deemed  by  them  unde- 
sirable. 


12  The  ''Prayer  for  the  Sickr 

Class  B.   National  snpremac}- ;    preservation  from  pesti- 
lence, famine,  and  battles ;  the  fertility  of  the 
soil,  whether  suitable  for  the  growth  and  pres- 
ervation  of  vegetable   products ;    the   health, 
wealth,    and   long   life   of  the   chief    national 
ruler ;    a  special   share   of  grace   and  wisdom 
for  the  nobilit}',  and  for  members  of  the  legis- 
lature and  of  the  Executive. 
Class  C.  For  all  that  are  in  danger ;  for  the  preservation 
of    travellers,    of    sick     persons,    of    3'oung 
children,    prisoners,    orphans,    and    widows ; 
protection   against  murder  and  sudden  death. 
Class  D.  Comprehends  special  forms  for  occasional   use  ; 
e.g.^  for  "moderate  rain   and   sliowers,"  &c  ; 
that  "  scarcity-  and  dearth  nvAy  be  turned  into 
cheapness   and   plenty;"    that    "this   plague 
and  grievous   sickness  ma}-    be   withdrawn  ;  " 
and  the  prayer  for  "sick  persons,"   wliirh  is 
not  precise  in  its  requests  on  their  l>ehalf. 
From  all  the  foregoing,  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the  con- 
clusion, alread\'  more  than  hinted,  that  a  ver}'  ample  belief 
exists  in  the  Christian  Church  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer  to 
God  to  avert  dire  physical    evils,   whicli  without    it     might 
occur;  such,  for  example,  as  disease  and  death.     AVcre  anv 
one,  liowever,  liardy  enough  to  question  tliis,  it  would  snlliee 
to  point  out  that  the   custom  of  offering   prayers   for  the 
recovery  of  sick  persons  wlien    in    groat   danger   is   almost 


The  ''Prayer  for  the  Sick:'  13 

universal  here.  And  it  may  be  added,  tliat,  in  the  larger  and 
more  ancient  section  of  the  Church,  prayer  still  continues  on 
behalf  of  the  deceased,  —  a  custom,  perhaps,  not  less  pious 
and  reasonable  than  the  first-named. 

Now,  I  propose  to  examine  this  subject  from  one  point  of 
view  only,  in  the  endeavor  to  discover  a  means  of  demon- 
strating, in  some  tangible  form,  the  efficac}'  of  prayer.  I 
commence  by  remarking,  however,  that  the  objects  of 
praj-er  in  Class  A  clearly  present  inordinate  difficulties,  and 
are  obviousl}'  unfitted  for  our  purpose.  Class  B  furnishes 
subjects  which  might  be  examined,  but  which  are  less  easy 
of  treatment  than  some  of  those  to  be  found  in  Classes  G 
and  D.  But,  even  here,  elements  of  disturbance  present 
themselves  ;  thus,  in  reference  to  the  influence  of  prayer  on 
states  of  the  weather  in  limited  localities,  that  food  ma}'  be 
cheapened,  that  travellers  ma^-  be  pieocrved  from  accident, 
&c.,  it  is  certain  that  considerable  difficulty  would  ari;,e  in 
any  systematic  attempt  to  arrive  at  accurate  conclusions. 
But  this  leads  me  to  remark,  that  there  appears  to  be  one 
source  from  a  studj'  of  which  the  absolute  calculable  value 
of  prayer  (I  s[)eak  with  the  utmost  reverence)  can  almost 
certainl}'  be  ascertained.  I  mean  its  influence  in  affecting 
the  com-se  of  a  malad}',  or  in  averting  the  fatal  termination. 
For  it  must  be  admitted  that  such  an  important  influence, 
manifestl}'  either  does,  or  does  not  exist.  If  it  does,  a  care- 
ful investigation  of  diseased  persons  b}-  good  pathologists, 
working  with  this  end  ser'.oasly  in  viow,  must  determine  the 


14  The  ^'■Prayer  for  the  Sick.''^ 

fact.  The  fact  determined,  it  is  simpl}-  a  matter  of  further 
careful  clinical  observation  to  estimate  the  extent  or  degree 
in  which  pra3'er  is  effective.  And  the  next  step  would  be  to 
consider  how  far  it  is  practicable  to  extend  this  benefit 
among  the  sick  and  dj^ing.  And  I  can  conceive  few  inquiries 
which  are  more  pregnant  with  good  to  humanity  when  this 
stage  has  been  arrived  at. 

You  will  naturally  next  say,  What  practical  shape  does 
the  method  take  by  which  you  propose  to  attain  3'our  end  ? 
The  method  has  its  difficulties  ;  but  I  see  none  that  are 
insuperable.  If  I  may  reckon  on  the  active  co-operation 
of  those  who  most  believe  in  the  value  of  such  prayer  (and  I 
think  I  have  a  right  to  do  so) ,  the  inquir}-  will  be  easy  ;  for 
few  more  interesting  subjects  of  inquiry  can  exist  for  the 
honest  believer  than  the  extent  of  man's  influence  with 
Heaven  at  the  most  momentous  crisis  in  his  personal 
history. 

Before  entering  on  the  details  demanded,  it  is  first  neces- 
sary to  remark,  that  prayer  for  the  recovery  of  sick  persons 
exists  in  two  distinct  forms,  or,  if  I  may  use  the  term,  in 
two  orders  or  degrees  of  quality.  For,  first,  there  are  the 
general  prayers  for  the  sick,  made,  without  distinction  as  to 
individuals  or  to  numbers,  on  most  occasions  of  public 
worship.  These  pra3crs  are  offered  by,  perhaps,  thirty 
thousand  congregations  every  Sunday  in  our  coinitry,  since 
it  is  no  less  the  practice  of  the  Dissenter  tlian  of  the 
Churchman   to  remember  devoutly  the  sick  in  the  weekly 


The  ''Prayer  for  the  Sick:'  15 

supplication.  But,  besides  these,  there  are  the  special 
praters  for  individual  sick  persons,  which  are,  b}-  general 
consent,  deemed  also  necessary ;  and  thus  it  is,  that,  when 
the  patient  holds  a  very  high  place  in  societ}',  a  special 
form  of  petition  is  sometimes  ordained  to  be  used  throughout 
the  national  churches  for  his  recovery.  It  is  one  of  the 
advantages  of  rank  and  gentle  birth  in  England,  that  spe- 
cial prayers  are  made  for  such,  ever}^  week  at  least,  in  most 
churches  throughout  the  countr}'. 

The  fii'st  kind,  or  "  general  prayer,"  then,  must  be  held  to 
have  a  certain  value  not  inconsiderable,  since  it  is  this  kind 
which  is  relied  on  against  the  dangers  of  travel,  of  murder, 
and  of  sudden  death,  and  respecting  which  no  other  or 
special  petitions  are  provided.  This  general  prayer  for  the 
recovery  from  sickness  is  constantly  ascending,  if  I  ma}'  use 
the  term,  in  a  broad  stream  to  Heaven ;  ^-et,  its  objects 
("all  men")  being  so  numerous,  it  is  not  held  to  suffice 
for  all  individual  cases  :  hence  the  sfiiiOJad-4iind,  or  special 
prayer.  And  the  object  sought  by  those  who  are  interested 
in  the  recoveiy  of  the  sick,  obviously  is  to  concentrate  the 
special  prayers  of  man}-  on  the  recovery  of  one,  in  the  belief, 
that,  by  this  means,  the  malady  may  be  more  certainly 
checked  than  were  the  patient's  frte  to  depend  only  on  the 
influence  of  the  "  general  prayer."  With  this  end  it  is,  that 
the  special  pra^'ers  of  a  congregation  are  asked  for  A  or  B, 
or  a  special  prayer-meeting  is  held  to  offer  the  one  object  of 
petition.     I  have  been  m3-self  present  at  such  meetings,  and 


1 6  The  "'Prayer  for  the  Sick.^^ 

have  -witnessed  the  number,  the  minuteness,  and  the  length 
of  the  petitions. 

Now,  the  latter  kind,  or  ''.special  prayer,"  is  that  which 
readih'  lends  itself  to  the  earnest  inquu'er  in  this  matter ; 
and  it  is  by  its  means,  if  carefully  and  couscientiousl}'  pur- 
sued, that  we  may  certainly  arrive,  if  at  all,  at  a  solution  of 
the  gi'eat  question  I  have  proposed. 

The  following  appeai-s  to  me  to  indicate  the  manner  of 
conducting  the  inquiry.  It  should  be  pursued  on  a  system 
somewhat  analogous  to  that  which  is  pursued  by  the  facult}* 
when  a  question  arises  as  to  the  value  of  any  particular 
mode  of  treating  disease.  For  example,  a  new  remed}'  has 
been  proposed,  or  is  said  on  high  authority  to  be  efficacious  ; 
and  as  authority  does  not  suffice  in  medicine,  further  than  to 
recommend  a  given  course,  and  never  to  prescribe  it,  the 
remedy  is  carefully  tested.  Usually  a  hospital  or  a  ward  is 
assigned  for  tlie  purpose.  All  the  patients  sutfering  from 
the  disease  to  be  treated  are.  duriug  a  certain  period,  divid- 
ed into  two  classes ;  and  all  are  subjected,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, to  the  same  conditions,  that  single  one  of  treatment 
alone  excepted.  The  ages,  sexes,  and  many  other  particu- 
lars of  the  patients,  are  taken  into  account,  and  duly  noted. 
The  one  class  is  treated  by  the  old  system  ;  and  the  other,  by 
the  new  remedy.  AVheu  a  very  large  number  —  for  in  large 
numbers  only  is  there  truth  —  has  been  thus  dealt  with,  the 
results  are  compared,  and  the  value  of  the  remed}"  can  be 
definiteh'  expiessed ;  that   is,  its  influence  above  or  below 


The  ''Prayer  for  the  Sick:'  17 

that  of  the  old  treatment,  as  the  case  may  be,  will  appear  in 
the  percentage  of  recovery,  or  of  other  results. 

Now,  after  much  thought  and  examination  of  the  various 
questions  and  objections  which  may  possibly*  be  urged,  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  propose  an  analogous  arrangement,  in  order 
to  estimate  and  rightly  appreciate  the  influence  of  special 
prayer  to  check  disease,  or  to  avert  death. 

We  possess  unquestionable  data  in  reference  to  certain 
well-known  maladies,  particularly  the  fevers  of  eruptive 
tj'pe ;  such  as  small-pox,  typhoid,  scarlet  fever,  &c.  Of 
some  local  acute  disorders,  such  as  pneumonia,  we  know 
what  is  termed  the  natural  history  pretty  well,  —  their  dura- 
tion, and  probable  termination,  at  diflerent  ages,  &c.  The 
mortality  which  follows  the  great  surgical  operations  at  differ- 
ent ages  is  a  matter  known  and  determined ;  for  example, 
after  lithotomy  and  lithotrity,  amputations  of  the  limbs, 
hernia,  &c.  The  very  large  records  of  past  cases  which 
exist,  and  the  ver}-  wide  and  careful  researches  which  have 
been  made,  have  had  for  their  result  the  production  of 
known  numerical  mortality-rates  per  cent,  and  applicable  to 
future  patients  of  diflTerent  ages  and  conditions.  Indeed, 
the  whole  system  of  life-assurance  is,  all  the  world  over, 
based  solely  on  the  accuracy  of  such  data,  and  on  the  cer- 
tainty with  which  they  will  reproduce  themselves.  What- 
ever these  numerical  results  have  been,  —  whether  the  mor- 
talitj^-rates  deduced  belong  to  healthy  lives  or  to  diseased 
lives  —  all  have  been  necessarily  made  subject  to  the  condi- 


1 8  The  ''Prayer  for  the  Sick:' 

tions  of  human  life  as  it  now  exists,  and  including,  among 
a  thousand  other  influences,  that  most  important  one  of 
"general  prayer"  by  the  whole  Christian  Church  for  "  all 
men,"  as  it  has  been  already  described,  and  influencing  as  it 
does,  whatever  may  be  its  extent,  the  sick,  the  suffering, 
those  exposed  to  murder  and  sudden  death,  «S:c.,  throughout 
the  whole  world.  Subject  to  this  influence  is  that  of  every 
drag  pi-escribed.  Influenced  by  this  is  the  result  of  ever}' 
surgical  operation. 

Now,  for  the  purpose  of  our  inquiry,  I  do  not  propose  to 
ask  that  one  single  child  of  man  should  be  deprived  of  his 
participation  in  all  that  belongs  to  him  of  this  vast  influence. 
But  I  ask  that  one  single  ward,  or  hospital,  under  the  care 
of  first-rate  ph3'sicians  and  surgeons,  containing  certain 
numbers  of  patients  afflicted  with  those  diseases  which  have 
been  best  studied,  and  of  which  the  mortality-rates  are  best 
known, — whether  the  diseases  are  those  which  are  treated 
by  medical  or  bj' surgical  remedies, — should  be,  during  a 
period  of  not  less,  saj-,  than  three  or  five  3'ears,  made  the 
object  of  special  prayer  b}'  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful, 
and  that,  at  the  end  of  that  time,  the  mortalitj'-rates  should 
be  compared  with  the  past  rates,  and  also  with  that  of  other  ^ 
leading  hospitals  similarly  well  managed  during  the  same 
l^eriod.  Granting  that  time  is  given,  and  numbers  are  suflS- 
cientl}'  large,  so  as  to  insure  a  minimum  of  error  from  acci- 
dental disturbing  causes,  the  experiment  will  be  exhaustive 
and  complete. 


The  ''Prayer  for  the  Sick:'  19 

I  might  have  proposed  to  treat  two  sides  of  the  same  hos- 
pital, managed  by  the  same  men  ;  one  side  to  be  the  object 
of  special  prayer,  the  other  to  be  exempted  from  all  prater. 
It  would  have  been  the  most  rigidl}'  logical  and  philosophical 
method.  But  I  shrink_  from  depriving  any  of — I  had 
almost  said  —  his  natural  inheritance  in  the  praj-ers  of 
Christendom.  Pi'acticall}',  too,  it  would  have  been  impos- 
sible. The  unprayed-for  ward  would  have  attracted  the 
praj'ers  of  believers,  as  surely  as  the  lofty  tower  attracts 
electric  fluid.  The  experiment  would  be  frustrated.  But  the 
opposite  character  of  my  proposal  will  commend  it  to  those 
who  are  naturally  the  most  interested  in  its  success,  — 
those,  namely,  who  conscientiously  and  devoutly  believe  in 
the  efficiency,  against  disease  and  death,  of  special  prayer. 
I  open  a  field  for  the  exercise  of  their  devotion.  I  offer  an 
occasion  of  demonstrating  to  the  faithless  an  imperishable 
record  of  the  real  power  of  praj'er. 

AiHENiEUM  Club,  PAiiL  Mall,  Jiine,  1872. 


II. 

''THE  SPECTATOK"  ON  THE  PROPOSED 
PEAYEE-GAUGE. 


The  earliest  reply  to  the  challenge  of  Mr,  Tyndall  and  his  friend 
appeared  as  an  editorial  in  "  The  Spectator,"  July  6,  1872,  No.  2,297, 
pp.  846,  847. 

"  The  Spectator"  is  issued  every  Saturday,  and  is  now  approaching 
its  fiftieth  year.  It  is  supposed  to  represent  the  best  culture  of  the 
Broad  Churchmen.  Mr.  R.  H,  Hutton  was  the  editor,  or  one  of  the 
editors.     This  is  numbered  1. 

In  the  number  of  the  succeeding  week,  July  13,  No.  2,298,  i).  879, 
a  correspondent,  with  the  signature  A.  A.,  follows  up  the  editorial, 
opening  the  letter-bag  of  contributions  to  the  discussion.  This  com- 
mimication  is  numbered  2. 


II. 

THE   PROPOSED    PRAYER-GAUGE. 

1. 

pROF.  TYNDALL  should  hardly  have  given  the  sanc- 
tion of  his  deservedl}'  respected  name  to  the  unwor- 
thy piece  of  literar}-  iron}-,  —  for  such  we  unhesitatingly 
deem  it,  —  in  which  an  anon^nnous  writer  in  "  The  Contem- 
IDorar}'  Review ' '  proposes  gravely  to  the  believers  in  prayer 
to  make  an  attempt  at  quantitative  measurement  of  God's 
accessibilit}'  to  prayer,  i.e.,  at  a  ph3sical  determination 
of  the  value  of  special  providences.  If  the  ph3'sicists  are 
as  accurate  as  they  are  apt  to  be  arrogant,  the^'  should  at 
least  know  how  to  respect  the  religious  feelings  of  the 
believers  they  despise,  and  not  attempt  to  poke  fun  at  them 
in  the  shape  of  thinl3'-veiled  scoffs  at  then*  most  profound 
and  intimate  faiths.  "We  are  aware,  indeed,  that  some  of 
the  readers  of  this  elaborate  sarcasm  have  attributed  it  to  a 
believer,  and  not  a  disbeliever,  in  the  power  of  praj-er.  We 
will  give,  in  a  moment,  our  reasons  for  feeling  confident  that 
this  is  impossible  ;  but  a  single  sentence  of  the  paper  to 

23 


24  The  Proposed  Prayer -Gauge, 

■which  Prof.  Tyndall  has  lent  his  sanction  will,  probably,  suf- 
fice to  convince  most  of  our  readers  of  its  true  nature. 
Speaking  of  the  special  prayers  for  sick  people  in  imminent 
danger,  the  writer  says,  "It  is  one  of  the  advantages  of 
rank  and  gentle  birth  in  England,  that  special  prayers  are 
made  for  such,  every  week  at  least,  in  most  churches  through- 
out the  countr}'."  Few  will  doubt  that  the  author  has 
here  been  uualjle  to  repress  the  sneer  of  which  his  whole 
paper  is  an  elaborate  embodiment,  nor  that  his  democratic 
bias  in  this  case  combined  for  the  moment  with  his  sceptical 
feeling  to  sharpen  the  sting  of  his  sentence  ;  j'ct,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  we  imagine  the  truth  to  be  quite  otherwise.  In 
most  churches,  one  hears  praj-ers  for  the  sick  poor  every 
Sunday  ;  while  the  reserve  of  the  rich  usually  prevents  their 
asking  the  prayers  of  the  congregation,  even  where  they  are 
not  sceptical  as  to  their  value.  What  Mr.  Tyndall's  friend 
affects  to  wish  is  this,  —  that  special  prayers  should  be 
continually  offered  by  all  the  believers  in  prayer  who  will 
consent  to  join,  during  three  or  five  j-ears,  for  the  recover^' 
of  the  patients  of  a  single  hospital,  without  depriving  "  one 
single  child  of  man"  of  what  the  writer  ''had  almost  called 
his  natural  inheritance  in  the  prayers  of  Christendom." 
He  would  then  compare  the  average  duration  of  sickness, 
and  the  average  rates  of  mortalit}',  in  that  hospital,  with  the 
same  rates,  for  the  same  class  of  diseases,  in  other  not  spe- 
cially distinguished  hospitals,  and  regard  the  shortening  of 
the   average   time   of  sickness,  if  any,  and  the  diminution 


The  Proposed  Prayer  -Gauge.  25 

of  the  death-rate,  if  any,  as  a  residuaiy  phenomenon  due  to 
the  special  prajer-power  concentrated  on  that  institution. 
We  describe  this  ironical  proposal  with  something  of  reluc- 
tance and  disgust ;  for  we  confess  that  we  do  not  think  sub- 
jects of  this  kind  suitable  for  efforts  of  literary  sarcasm.  If 
sceptics  like  to  state  their  doubts  and  their  pity  for  others' 
unreasonable  faith  openl}^,  we  have  nothing  but  approval  to 
express.  So,  and  so  onl}-,  can  the  doubters  come  to  under- 
stand the  believers  ;  and  the  believers,  the  doubters.  But  the 
instinct  of  the  trapper,  and  the  policy  of  the  ambuscade, 
cannot  be  applied  to  subjects  of  this  kind  without  indefi- 
nitely increasing  the  estrangements  and  bitter  alienations  of 
our  religious  and  irreligious  worlds. 

And  now  we  will  justify  the  line  we  have  taken  about  this 
insidious  challenge,  by  stating  wh}'  the  authoi-'s  proposal 
seems  to  us,  what  a  certain  number  of  simple  religious 
people  will  ver^'  likel}'  not  find  it,  a  covert  sneer,  and  not 
the  frank  challenge  of  a  cultivated  inquirer.  What  Chris^ 
tians  believe,  for  the  most  part,  is,  that  God  answers,  some- 
times  in  one  way  and  sometimes  in  another,  those  prayers 
which  really  come  from  the  depth  of  the  heart, — prayers 
which  cannot  but  be  accompanied  by  a  deep  effort  of  sub- 
mission to  his  higher  will ;  and,  when  we  saj'  that  he 
answers  them,  we  mean  that  he  makes  areal  answer,  — 
whether  in  the  waj"  of  pitiful  denial,  or  tender  assent,  or 
assent  in  some  different  and  deeper  sense  than  that  of  the 
request  itself,  — which  is  manifest  to  the  heart   of  him  who 


26  The  Projyosed  Prayer  -Gauge. 

oflfered  the  prayer.  But  we  should  be  much  surprised  to 
learn  that  an}^  man  who  had  really  given  up  his  mind  to 
thoughts  of  this  kind  at  all  had  ever  regarded  his  pra^'er  as 
a  sort  of  petty  dictation  to  God,  the  eftect  of  which  might 
be  measured,  like  a  constituent's  pressure  on  his  representa- 
tive in  parliament,  by  the  influence  it  exerted  on  the  issue. 
You  pra3%  if  you  praj-  in  the  spirit  of  Christ  at  all,  not  for 
a  specific  external  end,  but  because  it  is  a  deep  relief  to 
pour  out  30ur  heart  to  God  in  the  frankest  way  possible  to 
limited  human  nature,  and  in  the  hope,  that,  if  yowx  wish  is 
not  granted,  j^our  want  may  be.  Suppose  j'ou  pra}'  for  the 
recover}'  of  a  mortall}'  sick  friend,  who  dies.  What  3'our 
pra3'er  really  consists  of  is  the  confession  of  the  blank  you 
fear  for  yourself,  and  still  more,  perhaps,  for  others  ;  of  your 
dread  of  losing  the  moral  help  and  sj^mpathy  so  essential  to 
you  ;  of  the  3'earning  that  this  trouble  ma}'  not  come  on 
those  whom  it  threatens.  And  is  not  that  prayer  as  much 
answered  by  the  substitution  of  other  and  possibly  more 
potent  moral  influences  for  those  which  are  lost,  as  b}'  the  ^ 
recovery  of  the  threatened  life  itself?  Yet  "  answer  to 
pra3'er,"  in  the  sense  of  the  "conciliatory"  writer  in  "The 
Contemporary,"  as  Prof.  Tyndall  flatteringly  terms  him, 
could  mean  but  one  thing,  —  that  the  specific  life  threatened 
should  be  restored. 

But,  be3'ond  this,  the  proposal  of  Prof.  T3-ndairs  friend  is 
of  a  ver3'  ambiguous  character,  for  a  deeper  reason.  He 
respectfull3'  declines  to  attempt  applying  what  he  calls  "  the 


The  Proposed  Prayer -Gauge.  27 

more  rigidly  logical  and  philosophical  method"  of  com- 
paring one  ward  in  a  hospital  where  the  inmates  had  every 
care  and  help,  except  intercessory  prayer,  with  another, 
where  they  had  all  these  influences,  and  the  advantage  of 
intercessory  prayer  as  well ;  because,  as  he  justly  remarks, 
it  would  not  be  possible  to  keep  religious  people  from  otter- 
ing up  special  prayers  for  the  ward  on  which  the  experiment 
of  no  pra3'er  ought  to  be  tried.  In  other  words,  we  suppose 
he  thinks  it  would  be  difficult  to  discover  a  spiritual  equiva- 
lent for  the  process  known  as  hermetically  sealing  a  glass  / 
tube  against  the  intrusion  of  any  physical  influence  from 
without.  He  is  obliged,  therefore,  to  have  recourse  to  the 
inductive  method  known  as  that  of  "  variations,"  rather 
than  that  of  "  differences."  He  cannot  wholly  deduct  the 
influence  of  prayer  in  any  case ;  but  he  suggests  that  a 
special  excess  of  its  influence  might  be  secured  in  a  particu- 
lar case,  and  that  3'ou  might,  in  this  wa}',  secure  an  increase 
of  the  effect  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of  the  cause,  if 
the  cause  be  a  vera  causa  at  all.  But  he  quite  forgets,  that 
to  have  the  true  antecedent  he  wants,  in  any  sense  in  which 
most  Christians  admit  its  eflScac}',  you  must  have  for  your 
antecedent  a  prayer  that  is  the  single  expression  of  the  i  ' 
heart,  and  not  something,  which,  while  it  seems  to  ask  onej 
thing,  is  really  pointed  at  another,  and  which  makes  the 
recovery  of  the  patients  in  a  particular  hospital  a  mere 
indirect  mode  of  appljang  a  barometric  gauge  to  the  special 
providence  of  God.     Wjiefi-airirrtima^e-frientLa^is  a  favor, 


2  8  Tlie  Proposed  Prajjer -Gauge. 

not  because  he  simply  wants  the  thing  he  asks  for,  but 
wants  to  test  his  influence  with  the  person  whom  he  is 
soliciting,  we  all  know  that  the  whole  condition  of  the 
request  is  changed,  and  that,  very  often,  what  the  friend 
solicited  would  accede  to  in  the  former  case,  he  would  refuse 
as  a  deliberate  abuse  of  personal  influence  in  the  latter  case. 
No  doubt,  Prof.  Tyndall's  friend  might  reply,  that  in  the  Old 
Testament,  at  least,  we  have  instances  (notably  Elijah's) 
where  prayer  was  professedly  an  invitation  to  God  to  give 
the  world  some  means  of  judging  of  the  influence  which  a  , 
particular  person  had  with  him,  as  a  kind  of  sign  that  this 
person  was  really  inspired  by  an  omnipotent  and  omniscient 
Being.  But,  whatever  we  ma}-  sa}-  of  Elijah's  proceeding, 
Christians  are  accustomed  to  think  that  they  are  forbidden 
to  ask  for  signs  as  measures  of  their  influence  with  God  ; 
and  that  it  is  to  this  morbid  tendenc}'  that  our  Lord's  words, 
even  as  to  his  own  similar  temptation,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
tempt  the  Lord  thy  God,"  speciall}-  apply.  Certainly  there 
is  something  simply  revolting  to  the  spirit  of  Christian  prayer 
in  the  proposal  to  gauge  indirectl}^  by  continuous  praj-er  for 
a  particular  institution's  success,  the  divine  susceptibility  to 
prayer.  IIow  should  we  think  of  an}-  one  who  prayed  — 
I.e.,  who  ought  to  be  pouring  out  the  deepest  longings  of 
his  soul  —  for  the  restoration  of  certain  persons  to  health, 
only  to  make  a  delicate  experiment  on  the  relation  between  ' 
the  spiritual  and  physical  forces  of  the  universe?  Does  it 
follow,  because,  in  some  sense,  God  answers  true  praj-er,  he 


The  Proposed  Prayer -Gauge.  29 

would  answer  the  demand  for  a  scientifically  scaled  prayer- 
gauge  ?  Even  Elijah  put  his  prayer  for  a  sign  openly.  He 
asked  for  nothing  desirable  in  itself,  but  solely  for  a  physical 
sign  that  his  God  held  the  elements  in  his  hands.  But  what 
Prof.  Tyudall's  friend  desii-es,  is,  that  we  shall  cloak  our 
request  for  a  sign  under  a  request  for  something  which  we  • 
suppose  to  be  intrinsically  desirable  ;  that  we  shall  approach 
God  disguised,  with  a  sort  of  excuse  on  our  lips,  our  object 
not  being  in  itself  the  recovery  of  the  patients  of  the  par- 
ticular institution,  but  the  scientific  determination  of  our 
moral  command  of  the  fountains  of  divine  mercy.  Can  it 
be  well  conceived  that  such  a  proposal  could  be  made,  except 
in  profound  irony  ? 

But  Prof.  Tyndall  and  his  friend  will  reply,  "Well,  then, 
you  confess  that  the  power  of  prayer  is  —  for  physical  pur- 
poses at  all  events  —  practically  incalculable,  since  you 
resist,  even  with  scorn,  all  attempts  to  test  its  limits ;  and 
how  can  you  expect  ph3'sicists  to  believe  in  any  ph3"sical 
cause  whatever,  which  is  admitted  to  have  only  incalculable 
efiects?"  To  which  we  should  simply  rejoin,  "How, 
indeed?  But  who  ever  thought  before  of  convincing 
physicists,  as  physicists,  of  the  reality  of  a  power,  which, 
by  the  ver}^  nature  of  the  case,  they  could  not  as  physicists 
appeal  to,  even  if  they  were  convinced  of  its  existence?" 
A  great  ambition  often  produces  a  great  career ;  but  you 
cannot  produce  a  great  ambition  by  dwelling  on  the  charms 
of  a  great  career.     A  great  love  defies  death  ;  but  you  can- 


30  The  Proposed  Prayer  -Gauge. 

not  get  a  great  love  simpl}-  by  wishing  for  a  force  strong 
enough  to  defy  death.  So  earnest  prayer  may  have  a  mys- 
terious power  which  it  is  quite  impossible  to  trace,  even  over 
phj^sical  ev^ents  ;  but  you  cannot  get  earnest  prayer  simply 
from  the  intense  desire  to  mould  physical  events  to  3'our 
will.  Prayer  is,  if  it  is  an}'  thing  at  all,  communion  with 
God ;  and  the  very  conditions  of  the  case  exclude  this  base 
experiment  on  the  possible  construction  of  a  praj'er-gauge. 
And  free  communion  with  God  excludes,  and  necessaril}' 
excludes,  the  desire  to  dictate  the  answer.  Its  language  is 
accommodated  to  the  language  of  Isaiah,  "  BIy  thoughts 
are  not  3'our  thoughts,  neither  are  jour  wa3's  ni}'  wa3-s,  saith 
the  Lord.  For  as  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth,  so 
are  my  ways  higher  than  your  ways,  and  m}'  thoughts  than 
your  thoughts."  If  Christians  are  not  ashamed  to  pray 
sometimes  for  specific  physical  blessings,  it  is  or  ought  to 
be,  rather  as  the  simplest  expression  of  their  anxieties,  than 
as  expecting  that  the  divine  response  either  must  or  ought 
to  be  the  giving  of  the  exact  blessing,  or  the  warding-off  the 
exact  trouble,  which  they  name.  We  believe  prayer  to  be  a 
true  power,  —  a  jjower  which  alters  the  external  course  of 
the  world,  as  well  as  its  internal  course ;  but  we  believe  it 
on  precisely  the  same  kind  of  evidence  on  which  ever}'  sane 
man  believes  that  the  passionate  desires  of  individuals  so 
often  realize  themselves,  and  that  the  hopes  of  multitudes 
create  the  great  historic  changes  for  which  Ihey  cr}'.  It 
seems  to  us  far  simpler  to  believe  that  those  results  take 


The  Proposed  Prayer  -  Gauge.  3 1 

place  through  the  providence  of  God  than  th.-^t  they  come 
to  pass  through  the  magic  iufluence  of  human  passion,  —  far 
simpler,  because  there  are  so  many  objects  of  desire  which 
intense  desire  only  throws  into  the  greater  distance,  while 
with  high  moral  and  spiritual  objects  of  desire,  at  all  events, 
this  is  never  so.  But  we  should  be  as  sincerely  disgusted 
with  such  an  experiment  on  God  as  Pi'of.  Tyndall's  friend 
suggests,  as  he  is  probably  delighted  with  himself  for  the 
invention  of  that  triumphant  dilemma,  into  which,  as  he 
imagines,  he  has  wedged  the  superstitious  crowd  whom  he 
desires  to  expose. 


2. 

[to  the  editor  of  the  "  SPECTATOR."] 

Sir,  —  Although  I  agree  with  you  in  holding  the  letter  in 
"The  Contemporary  Review"  to  be  "an  elaborate  sar- 
casm," I  still  think  there  is  one  moral  to  be  drawn  from  it, 
which,  in  your  admirable  article,  you  did  not  pause  to  draw  ; 
namely',  the  fresh  testimony  it  affords  of  the  utter  inability 
of  a  certain  class  of  scientific  minds  to  understand  who  and 
what  the  Deity  is  whom  Christians  confess  and  adore.  The 
writer  practically  says  this :  "  You  Christians  believe  that 
there  is  a  certain  mighty  force,  which  j-ou  are  allowed  to 
summon  at  command.  One  person  can  set  it  in  motion 
slightly :  a  large  number,  acting  simultaneously,  can  move 
it  still  more.     K  you  can  secure  the  co-operation  of  a  larger 


32  The  Proposed  Prayer -Gauge. 

body  still,  there  is  no  knowing  what  the  results  may  not 
be."  The  writer's  argument,  in  short,  is  intended  as  a 
reductio  ad  absurdum  of  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  Chris- 
tian ideas  of  God,  and  men's  access  to  liim  by  pra^^er. 

The  striking  and  most  melancholy  feature  of  the  letter  is, 
1  hat  it  wholly  ignores  the  existence  of  an}'  moral  or  even  rea- 
sonable qualities  in  the  Being  to  whom  prayer  is  addressed. 
The  writer  has  not  even  attained  to  the  conception  of  God 
as  a  wise  and  good  man,  or  he  would  never  have  proposed  a 
mode  of  address  to  him,  which  a  man  of  the  most  moderate 
degree  of  sense  and  decency  would  instinctively  resent,  if 
paid  to  himself.  What  would  the  writer  have  said  to  his 
own  children,  if  he  heard  them  concocting  a  plan  for  making 
an  experiment  upon  his  good-nature,  not  dictated  by  their 
real  necessities  or  honest  desires,  but  b}'  curiosity  as  to  the 
amount  of  pressure  he  could  succeed  in  resisting?  And,  if 
there  be  a  God  at  all,  is  he  not  likely  to  be  at  least  as 
jealous  of  the  moral  well-being  of  those  whom  he  calls  his 
children  as  even  the  proposer  of  this  monstrous  experiment? 

The  writer  chooses  to  assume  as  the  God  of  the  Bible  a 
being  whose  relations  to  his  creatures  are  not  those  of  a 
moral  being  at  all.  The  charge  which  Christ  brought 
against  the  Gentiles,  that  they  thought  they  would  be 
heard  for  their  much  speaking,  is  here  brought,  for  the 
purpose  of  the  writer's  argument,  against  the  God  whom 
Christ  was  laboring  to  reveal.  Christ  taught  expressly  that 
God   regarded  the  sincorit}"  of  the  worshipper  as  the  fii'st 


The  ProposeA  Prayer  -Gcmye.  33 

condition  of  his  answering  the  pra3-er.  The  writer  before  us 
deliberately  assumes  that  the  God  of  the  Christian's  worship 
not  only  will,  but  is  bound  to,  grant  any  petition,  though 
dictated  by  the  idlest  curiosit}-,  or  (worse  still)  b}'  the 
insane  expectation  that  he  will  be  deceived  as  to  the  real 
purpose  for  which  it  is  presented.  Surely,  nothing  but  a 
virulent  hostility  to  the  religion  of  Christians  could  so  blind 
a  man  to  the  first  conditions  of  the  problem  which  he  is 
aiming  to  solve.     I  am,  sir,  &c.,  A.  A. 


III. 
THE  RATIONALE  OF  PRAYER. 

BY  THE  REV,  RICHARD  FREDERICK   LITTLEDALE,  D.C.L. 


This  appeared  in  the  August  number  of  "  The  Contemporaiy  Re- 
view," pp.  430-454,  next  after  the  number  in  which  the  question 
was  stated.  Dr.  Littledale  is  considered  an  extreme  Ritualist,  and 
one  of  the  ablest  men  of  this  section  of  the  English  Church.  His 
contribution  to  the  discussion  may  be  appreciated  by  those  who  have 
no  sympathy  with  his  advocacy  of  prayers  for  the  dead,  or  with  his 
flings  at  Calvinism. 


III. 

THE  EATIONALE   OF  PRAYEE. 

"For  Nyra,  he  hath  heard  that  men  of  fewwords  are  the  best  men;  and 
therefore  he  scorns  to  say  his  prayers,  lest  a'  should  be  thought  a  coward."  — 
Shakspeare. 

"TN  the  July  number  of  this  ' '  Review ' '  appeared  a  commu- 
nication from  Prof.  Tj^ndall,  accompanying  an  unsigned 
letter,  wherein  a  proposal  was  broached  for  testing  the 
efficac}'  of  prayer  by  means  of  inductive  experiment  and 
quantitative  analysis. 

Lest  any  readers  of  this  paj^jer  should  have  omitted  to 
examine  Prof.  Tyndall's  contribution,  it  is  well  to  say  that 
the  scheme  suggested  was  to  set  apart  one  ward  of  some 
hospital  for  the  reception  of  a  number  of  cases  of  diseases, 
which  have  been  satisfactorily  tabulated  as  to  the  ratio  of 
seizures  and  deaths  ;  to  have  this  ward,  while  under  exactly 
the  same  medical  treatment  as  the  others,  specially  in- 
terceded for  by  a  general  unicn  for  prajer  ;  and  then  to 
ascertain,  after  a  sufficient  time  had  been  allowed  for  the 
experiment,  whether  any  appreciable  difference  in  the  pro- 
portion of  deaths  to  cures,  and,  if  so,  what,  would  be  mani- 
fested as  the  I'csult  of  united  petitions  to  Heaven. 

37 


38  The  Rationah  of  Prayer. 

With  this  scheme  I  do  not  propose  to  deal  j'et  a  little. 
It  may  be  propounded  in  the  spirit  of  Voltaire,  or  in  that 
of  St.  Francis  when  he  offered  himself  to  the  ordeal  of  fire 
against  the  Egyptian  Imams  ;  and  therefore,  although  I  shall 
presently  discuss  its  evidential  value,  I  confine  myself, 
for  the  time,  to  investigating  the  intentions  and  arguments 
of  its  sponsor. 

The  paper  coincides,  in  date  of  publication,  with  one  bj' 
Prof.  Beesly  in  "The  Fortnightly  Review,"  from  which  I 
extract  the  following  passage,  whose  delicate  humor  and 
refined  good  feeling  need  no  comment  of  mine  :  — 

"When  Archbishop  Tait  claims  to  have  effected  the  cure  of  the 
Prince  of  Wales  by  his  Form  of  Public  Prayer,  issued  to  all  churches 
and  chapels  in  England  and  Wales,  and  in  the  town  of  Berwick-upon- 
Tweed,  he  is,  la  the  eyes  of  most  educated  men,  as  much  an  impos- 
tor as  Father  Peter  Conway  driving  a  voter  to  the  poll  at  the  point 
of  the  sacrament,  or  a  gypsy  examining  the  hand  of  a  kitchen-maid; 
and,  to  borrow  a  phrase  from  *  The  Pall  Mall  Gazette,'  '  not  one  whit 
less  an  impostor,  because  he  believes  in  every  word  he  says,  in  good 
faith.'  All  these  avail  themselves  of  their  mysterious  claims  to 
extract  money  from  the  community;  and,  if  the  amount  so  extracted 
were  to  be  the  measure  of  criminality  and  of  punishment,  it  is  to  be 
feared  that  Lambeth  would  come  off  worst." 

I  may  digress  for  a  moment,  to  point  out  that  the  logic  of 
tliis  expression  of  opinion  is  at  fault  from  the  lack  of  one 
essential  quality,  —  that  of  true  resemblance  between  the 
things  compared. 

On  the  one  hand,  there  is  neither  evidence  nor  probability 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  39 

that  Archbishop  Tait  issued  his  form  —  which  is  simply 
neither  better  nor  worse  than  the  average  of  those  very 
cm-ious  Lambeth  pra^-ers  —  as  an  infallible  specific  and  spell. 
He  did  not  say,  even  by  implication,  "Use  this  fonnula, 
and  you  will  succeed  ;  use  any  other,  and  30U  will  probably 
fail."  Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  would  his  position  and 
income  have  been  affected  in  the  smallest  degree  by  popular 
neglect  or  acceptance  of  the  document. 

Prof.  T^-ndall  has  not  been,  on  this  occasion,  as  explicit  as 
Mr.  Beesh' ;  but,  some  3-ears  ago  (1865  and  1867) ,  he  uttered 
opinions  in  the  ver}^  same  periodical  and  in  ' '  The  Pall  Mall 
Gazette,"  which  are  identical  in  effect,  however  more  cour- 
teously worded  ;  and  he  has  not  subsequently  retracted  them. 
In  one  particular,  he  has  gone  even  be3"ond  his  brother  scep- 
tic ;  for,  while  Prof.  Beesly  modestly  contents  himself  with 
ranking  on  his  side  the  "majority  of  educated  persons"  as 
disbelievers  in  the  efiicacy  of  prayer.  Prof.  T^-ndall  claimed 
the  support  of  the  "great  majority  of  sane  persons,"  and 
thus  leaves  the  creed  of  a  special  providence  not  even  the 
sympathies  of  a  respectable  minority  of  ignorant,  albeit  not 
unthinking,  men ;  but  will  have  it,  that  in  the  wise  and 
charitable  language  of  an  anonymous  though  easily  recog- 
nizable writer  in  "Eraser's  Magazine,"  in  1866,  "intelli- 
gent men  have  withdrawn  from  active  participation  in  the 
whole  matter ;  and  enthusiasts,  di-eamers,  knaves,  and  fools 
have  now  the  field  to  thems^'lves." 

In  order  to  appreciate  Mr.  Tj-ndall's  objections  at  their 


40  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

true  value,  it  is  only  just  to  him  and  to  myself  to  let  him 
speak  in  his  own  woi'ds  :  — 

"I  turn  to  the  account  of  the  Epping  cholera  case,  and  learn  that 
the  people  drank  poisoned  water.  To  alter  by  prayer  the  conse- 
quences of  this  or  any  similar  fact,  to  deprive  by  petition  even  a 
single  molecule  of  miasmatic  matter  of  its  properties,  would,  in  the 
eye  of  science,  be  as  much  a  miracle  as  to  make  the  sun  and  moon 
stand  still.  For  one  of  these  results,  neither  of  us  would  pray :  ou 
the  same  grounds,  I  refuse  to  pray  for  either."  —  Pall  Mall  Gazette, 
Oct.  19,  1865. 

"  They  ask  for  fair  weather  and  for  rain,  but  they  do  not  ask  that 
water  may  run  up  hill ;  while  the  man  of  science  clearly  sees  that  the 
granting  of  one  petition  would  be  just  as  much  an  infringement  of 
the  law  of  conservation  as  the  granting  of  the  other.  Holding  the 
law  to  be  permanent,  he  prays  for  neither." 

I  have  an  objection  to  allege  on  the  threshold,  before  I 
proceed  to  show  where  I  believe  a  fallacy  to  underlie  these 
statements.  It  is,  that  Prof.  Tyndall  does  not  plainly  say 
what  theological  ground  he  takes  up.  There  are  five  dif- 
ferent grounds,  however,  which  may  be  taken  up  by  dis- 
believers in  prayer : — 

1.  They  ma}-  be  Atheists;  in  which  case,  prayer  logically 
falls  through  for  lack  of  an  object,  albeit  it  is  maintained 
none  the  less  by  Comte  in  the  very  curious  religion  he 
invented. 

2.  They  may  be  Pantheists ;  in  which  case,  the  things 
usually  prayed  against   are  to  them  as  much  parts  of  the 


The  Rationale,  of  Prayer.  41 

universally-diffused  Divinity  as  their  opposites,  and,  being 
necessary',  are,  of  course,  irremovable  and  irrcformable. 

3.  They  maj-  be  Theists,  of  that  particular  stamp  which 
regards  God  in  the  light  of  a  skilful  mechanician,  who  after 
constructing  the  universe,  and  setting  it  at  work,  withdrew 
himself,  thenceforward,  from  all  interference  with  it,  as  com- 
pletely as  a  clockmaker  does  in  the  instance  of  a  clock 
which  he  has  exported  to  a  foreign  country.  Prayer  here  is 
useless,  because  God,  under  this  theory,  is  not  a  party 
activel)'  concerned,  and  will  not  interfere. 

4.  They  ma}^  think  themselves  Christians,  and  then  argue, 
either,  from  the  Calvinist  point  of  view,  that  God  has 
ordained  all  events  whatsoever  by  an  absolute  and  irreversi- 
ble fiat,  which  can  in  no  wise  be  affected  by  any  entreaties 
of  man ; 

5.  Or  else,  what  comes  practically  to  the  same  thing, 
though  not  open  to  quite  the  same  moral  objections,  they 
may  urge  that  God,  being  supremely  wise,  just,  loving,  and 
merciful,  ordains  every  thing  in  the  very  best  way  ;  so  that. 
were  he  to  alter  his  arrangements  to  meet  man's  ignorant 
wishes,  he  would  have  to  alter  them  for  the  worse  ;  and  it  is 
therefore  the  truest  faith  to  leave  the  matter  in  his  hands. 
This  is  the  argument  which  Canon  Kingsley  adduced ;  not 
without  a  certain  force,  when  the  registrar-general's  returns 
in  1861  showed  that  the  cold,  wet  summer  of  1860,  which 
tii-ew  forth  so  many  petitions  for  fair  weather,  had  been 
exceptionally  healthy  for  men  and  cattle  ;  so  that  the  average 
of  deaths  throughout  England  sank  considerably. 


42  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

These  five  grounds,  though  various  enough  to  distinguish 
contrariant  schools,  are  reducible  to  two,  —  Atheism  and 
Necessism. 

It  is  possible  to  take  up  yet  another,  the  only  one  which  is 
genuinely  sceptical,  in  the  true  sense  of  that  misused  word, 
—  that  of  the  Agnostics,  who  frankly  confess  that  the}'^  know 
nothing,  and  have  very  little  expectation  of  ever  knowing 
any  thing,  of  the  merits  of  the  question  on  the  one  side  or 
the  other.  But  Prof.  Tj'ndall's  active  crusade  against  prayer 
(albeit  not  easily  reconcilable  with  another  expression  of 
his  opinions,  which  I  will  cite  presently)  disallows  him  this 
positipn.,  and  compels  him  to  accept  one  of  the  other  two. 
"^^If  he  is  consciously  arguing  from  the  Atheistic  side,  I 
submit  that  he  is  bound  to  tell  us  so  much.  And,  as  the 
discussion  is  idle  between  persons  who  are  not  agreed  on 
the  existence  of  a  God,  I  shall  prefer  to  assume  that  Prof. 
T3'ndairs  objection  comes  from  the  Necessarian  side. 

And  to  Necessism  there  are  some  fatal  objections. 
Whether  it  be  taken  to  express  the  absolute  unchangeability 
of  God  himself,  or  that  of  a  system  of  laws  devised  by  him, 
it  is  clear,  that,  if  we  once  postulate  it,  we  must  allow  the 
universality  of  its  range  and  operation.  We  cannot  argue 
that  there  must  be  fixity  in  one  sphere,  and  jet  that  there 
inay  be  contingency  in  another.  Every  thing  must  be  part 
of  the  sequence  of  inevitable  law  ;  and  nothing  can  be,  or 
could  have  been,  other  than  it  is. 

Now,  I  would  just  point  out  the  circumstance,  that,  whether 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  43 

this  theory  be  true  or  false,  every  human  being  acts,  and 
cannot  help  acting,  on  the  hypothesis  of  its  falsehood.  The 
most  fanatical  disciple  of  Islam,  the  most  philosophic  Spi- 
nozist,  although  striving  to  accommodate  himself  to  the  prac- 
tical recognition  of  destin^^,  cannot  do  it.  He  will  eat  when  / 
he  is  hungry,  if  food  be  attainable  ;  he  will  go  out  of  his 
W'aj'  to  cross  a  bridge,  rather  than  attempt  an  untried  ford 
right  in  the  path  ;  he  will  lock  up  his  valuables  if  he  antici- 
pates theft.  It  is  of  no  use  to  reply  that  his  taking  all 
these  precautions  against  danger  of  any  kind  is  as  much 
pre-ordained  as  an}'  thing  else,  for  the  fact  remains  that  he  is 
conscious  of  free  choice  in  the  matter ;  and  no  argument  ' 
within  himself,  however  ingenious  its  special  pleading,  will 
really  convince  him  that  he  had  no  alternative,  since,  if 
there  be  a  constraining  force,  it  is  absolutely  imperceptible. 
Not  only  so;  but  there  is  an  element  of  direct  disproof, 
which  is,  that,  wherever  the  fatalist  theory  avowedly  prevails, 
we  always  find  a  very  exceptional  ratio  of  physical  and 
mental  apath}',  as  in  Turkey  and  China,  whence  we  are 
fairl}'  entitled  to  argue  that  it  is  the  known  presence  of  this  ' 
dogma  which  benumbs  activity,  since,  were  its  operation 
really  universal,  mere  ignorance  of  its  existence  would  make 
no  visible  difference.  Neeessism,  therefore,  as  a  theory  of 
life,  being  always  and  everywhere  unworkable,  is  condemned 
as  unthinkable  too. 

"we  base  the  argument  on  God's  immutabilit}^,  w^e  are 
the  sport  of  an  ambiguous   expression.      Moral   fixity  and 


44  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

perfection  is  necessary  to  our  idea  of  God,  but  not  so  iron 
uniformity  of  action. 

In  truth,  a  moment's  thought  will  show  that  to  predicate 
absolute  unchangeableness  in  all  respects  of  him  is  to 
detract  from  his  perfection,  not  to  enhance  it,  since  variety 
is  a  necessary  integer  in  man's  conception  of  absolute  beauty. 
Change  from  what  is  in  itself  perfect  need  not  be  changed  to 
less  or  more  loveliness,  as  an}'  one  can  tell  who  has  watched 
the  sunrises  and  sunsets  of  the  Adi-iatic  and  the  Archipelago, 
with  their  marv^ellous  shifting  and  play  of  colors,  alike  in 
beauty,  but  diverse  in  chromatic  expression.  And,  granted 
his  existence  as  Creator  and  Lawgiver,  sufficient  evidence 
exists  that  he  has  been  the  Author  of  change.  I  interrogate 
the  records  of  geology  ;  and  I  find  certain  strata  wherein  no 
token  of  former  life,  no  trace  of  organic  remains,  is  dis- 
coverable. Moreover,  science  tells  me,  that,  at  the  era  indi- 
cated as  that  when  these  strata  were  formed,  life  was  not 
only  absent,  but  impossible.  After  a  time,  a  change  of  the 
most  momentous  character  is  discernible.  Life  made  its 
appearance  on  our  globe,  at  first  in  vegetable  forms,  and 
later  on  in  animal  ones  also.  No  ingcnuitj-  on  the  part  of 
the  extremer  champions  of  evolution  has  yet  sho«'n  that  life 
can  be  evolved  out  of  death.  I  will  grant  that  some  little 
progress  has  been  made  towards  showing  that  organisms 
may  possibly  be  developed  out  of  inorganic  bodies  b}-  a 
re-arrangement  of  molecules  ;  but  not  one  decillionth  of  an 
inch  has  yet  been  spanned  of  the  unmeasured  gulf  which 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  45 

parts  death  and  life,  as  modes  of  existence,  from  each  other. 
Second  onl}',  if  even  second,  to  this  inexplicable  prodig}' ,  is 
the  sudden  appearance  of  man  upon  the  surface  of  the  globe, 
differing,  as  he  does,  in  essentials,  more  widely  from  the 
anthropoid  apes  than  they  do  from  the  amoeba  and  the 
rhizopod.     Life    and   reason  were   once   not  on  the   earth.  _ 


The}'  are  so^owl  What  prodigy  can  be  gi-eater,  what 
change  more  astonishing?  If  we  could  imagine  a  race  of 
reasoning  beings  inspecting  our  globe  from  a  neighboring 
planet,  with  instruments  powerful  enough  to  afford  them  a 
clear  view  of  its  surface,  and  carr^'ing  on  their  recorded 
observations  for  some  centuries  before  the  first  vegetable 
sprang  up,  or  the  first  saurian  crawled,  might  we  not  also 
assume  that  they  babbled  inductive  nonsense  about  ' '  the 
necessary-  character  of  natural  laws,"  and  the  impossibility 
of  any  change  ever  taking  place  ? 

For  here  comes  in  the  deadliest  argument  of  all  against 
Necessism.  It  is  an  unreasoning  and  unreasonable  hypoth- 
esis, and  no  more.  I  find  mj'self,  as  a  thinker,  in  frequent 
collision  with  the  fact  that  men  —  educated  and  sane  men, 
j-es,  and  eminent  physicists,  too  —  will  sa}'  the  same  thing  in 
different  words,  and  think,  or  tr}'  to  make  me  think,  that 
thev  lave  explained  or  accounted  for  it.  We  laugh  at  the 
stor}'  of  the  quack,  who  satisfied  an  old  woman,  who  had 
long  inquired  in  vain  why  her  child  was  born  dumb,  b}' 
telling  her  that  the  reason  was,  that  it  had  come  into  the 
world  without  the  faculty  of  speech.     But  when  a  physicist 


46  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

tells  me  that  the  reason  whj'  oil  and  water  will  not  mix,  or 
why  sulphuric-acicl  does  not  melt  gold,  is,  that  these  sub- 
stances have  severally  no  chemical  affinity  for  each  other, 
he  is  doing  exactly  the  same  thing,  and  expecting  me  to  be 
grateful  for  this  increase  to  my  stock  of  ideas.  And  this  is 
the  juggle  which  is  played  with  the  expression,  "  natural 
law."  There  is  absolutely  no  intellectual  process  at  work 
in  the  assertion  that  things  will  go  on  in  the  way  that  they 
have  hitherto  done  ;  for  I  deny  that  any  law  making  con- 
tinuance necessary,  or  even  probable,  has  been  discovered, 
or  that  physicists  have  as  j-et  established  more  than  the  fact 
that  certain  phenomena  or  acts  come  after  one  another  in,  as 
yet,  invariable  sequence.  That  the  antecedent  event  is  the 
cause,  and  the  subsequent  one  the  effect,  no  one  has  shown, 
far  less  wliy  the  results  are  such  and  such  in  an}-  case.  It  is 
not  reason,  but  mere  brute  instinct,  which  makes  me  expect 
sunrise  to-morrow.  Stars  have,  ere  now,  disappeared  from 
the  gaze  of  astronomers  ;  and  no  man  knows  what  has  be- 
come of  them,  —  whether  they  have  been  burnt  out  b}'  some 
tremendous  combustion,  or  carried  awaj'  into  space,  or 
absorbed  by  attraction  into  some  other  orb ;  but  they  are 
gone.  "What  intellectual  reason  can  be  given  why  the  sun 
should  not  be  the  next  to  vanish?  And,  supposing  he  did, 
Av hat  would  be  the  effect  on  our  solar  system?  Of  course, 
the  answer  given  will  be,  "It  is  certain  that  the  sun  will 
rise  to-morrow." 

I  am  not  disputing  the  fact,  though  I  deny  that  the  past 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  47 

can  prove  the  futiu-e  ;  but  the  point  I  wish  to  urge  is  this  : 
I  am  told  by  Prof.  Tyndall  and  his  friends,  that  the  great 
majority  of  educated  and  sane  men  are  at  one  as  to  the 
absolute  invariability  of  natural  law,  and,  by  implication, 
that  I  am  a  dunce  and  a  fool  for  believing  that  God  can  and 
does  work  miracles. 

I  will  not  trouble  m3'self  to  disclaim  the  epithets  ;  but  I 
may  fairly  ask  my  scientific  critics  to  deal  with  me  as  a 
teacher  at  Earlswood  Asylum  would  do  with  any  idiot  whom 
he  wished  to  instruct.  The  use  of  the  terms  "educated" 
and  "  sane  "  surely  implies  that  the  objection  to  a  belief  in 
the  "  miracles  of  pra3'er  "  is  an  intellectual  oiie.  If  so,  let 
us  have  it,  by  all  means.  But  to  say,  "  Such  a  thing  has 
been  hitherto,  therefore  it  will  continue  to  be,"  is  not  an  in- 
tellectual proposition  at  all ;  and  the  word  ' '  therefore  ' '  has 
no  business  in  it,  for  there  is  no  minor  term  to  the  syllogism. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  argument  for  prayer  is  an  intel- 
lectual one,  and  is  based  on  a  regular  process  of  reasoning. 
The  reasoning  maj-  be  good  or  bad,  conclusive  or  incon- 
clusive ;  but,  as  a  mere  mental  process,  it  stands  on  an 
immeasurably  higher  level  than  the  bare  unprovable  asser- 
tion of  Prof.  Tj-ndall  and  the  Necessarians,  which  has  no 
loftier  mental  rank  than  the  instinct  which  prompts  some 
insects  to  laj^  up  a  winter-store  of  provisions. 

I  dwell  upon  this  point,  not  out  of  soreness,  nor  from  any 
desire  for  recrimination,  but  simply  to  press  on  public  atten- 
tion the  defects  of  haz}-  thought  and  unbalanced  expression, 


48  Tlie  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

Mhich  mark  this  whole  school  in  every  thing  unconnected 
"vvith  the  idols  of  its  cave.  Take  the  ver}'  plea  which  is 
meant  to  impose  on  the  jury  before  which  the  case  is  being 
tried.  Is  it  not  plain  that  the  broad  and  unqualified  allega- 
tion as  to  the  opinions  of  the  "  great  majority  of  sane  and 
educated  persons  ' '  can  only  be  accounted  for  in  one  way,  — 
that  of  using  the  words  '•'  educated  and  sane  "  in  a  novel 
and  arbitrary  sense,  as  equivalent  to  "  holding  the  opinions 
of  Profs.  Tyndall  and  Bees!}' "  ?  If  the  physicists  had 
been  men  of  a  truly  and  universally  scientific  temper,  they 
would  have  made  an  induction  from  the  opinions  of  the 
"great  majority  of  sane  and  educated  men,"  I  suppose,  in 
Europe,  America,  and  the  various  Colonies,  leaving  Africa 
and  Asia  out  of  consideration. 

It  would  not,  in  the  present  condition  of  our  race,  have 
been  liecessary  to  examine  much  more  than  ten  millions  of 
people  of  all  countries  subject  to  the  inquiry;  and  the  Blue 
Book  thus  produced  would  be  a  highl}-  interesting  volume, 
but  perhaps  a  little  defective  on  the  score  of  portabilit}'. 
No  human  being  supposes  that  they  have  done  this,  or  taken 
any  steps  towards  doing  it ;  and  yet,  till  the}-  have  achieved 
something  of  the  kind,  they  have  no  right  to  use  loose  talk 
of  this  sort  about  the  numerical  strength  of  their  supporters. 

When  Canning  asked  the  famous  question,  "  Did  you  ever 
know  a  senior  wrangler  that  wasn't  a  fool?"  we  maybe 
sure  he  had  no  idea  of  casting  a  doubt  on  the  success  of  the 
tripos  as  a  test  of  mathematical  faculty  and  acquirement. 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  49 

What  he  possibly  had  in  his  mind,  albeit  he  had,  perhaps, 
not  thought  it  out  full}-,  is,  that  men  who  have  devoted  them- 
selves exclusively  to  geometiy  and  its  branches,  wherein 
necessar}'  sequence  does  exist,  and  where  contingency  is 
totally  absent,  are  singularly  deficient  in  practical  judgment, 
because  tho}'  have  never  learnt  to  make  allowance  for  un- 
expected events  disturbing  their  calculation  of  futurit\'. 

In  like  manner,  the  physicists  seem  unable  to  rise  out  of 
the  plane  of  material  conceptions  into  broad  moral  and 
spiritual  views,  or  even  to  look  at  phenomena  belonging  to 
other  spheres  of  knowledge  with  scientific  e3'es.  The}'  are 
like  Jedidiah  Buxton,  the  calculating  boy  of  the  last  century, 
taken  to  see  Garrick  act  Shakspeare,  and  coming  away 
unimpressed  alike  b}'  poet  and  actor,  but  being  able  to  state 
with  precision  how  many  separate  words  Garrick  uttered  in 
the  course  of  the  drama. 

One  result  of  these  ver^'  narrow  sympathies  is,  that  i\xQy 
live  in  a  clique  ;  and  the  cliquish  temper  makes  them,  as  I 
have  said,  profoundly  unscientific.  To  me  possibl}-,  as 
neither  sane  nor  educated,  every  fact  is  a  fact ;  and  I  do  not 
see  m}'  wa}'  to  ignoring  any  fact  that  comes  in  my  way,  and 
interferes  with  me  in  anj^  fashion.  As  soon  as  Mr.  Darwin's 
theory  of  "natural  selection"  is  proved,  I  am  ready  to 
embrace  it ;  and  I  am  not  in  the  least  frightened  at  the 
word  "  evolution." 

But  Clnistianitj'  seems  to  me  quite  as  large  and  important 
a  fact  in  the  world  as  the  existence  of  a  cross-breed  of 
4 


50  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

pigeons,  or  the  dropping-oflF  of  a  tadpole's  tail;  and  the 
belief  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer  is  not  only  an  inseparable 
integer  of  that  form  of  belief,  but  of  every  other  that  rises 
above  the  lowest  grade  of  savage  P'eticism,  Now,  here  is 
an  example  of  what  I  said  about  the  difficulty  ph3^sicists 
experience  in  facing  an}'  save  material  ideas.  If  you  draw 
their  attention  to  an}'  ver}'  widely-spread  and  endiu^ing 
practice  affecting  men's  bodies,  notably  such  matters  as  the 
use  of  fermented  stimulants,  or  of  narcotics,  such  as  tobacco, 
opium,  bhang,  or  betel,  they  will  aigue,  tind,  as  I  think, 
quite  justly,  against  teetotalers,  that  the  very  universality  of 
the  practice  is  an  adequate  proof  that  it  fulfils  some  useful 
purpose  in  animal  economy,  and  that,  consequently,  what- 
ever may  be  said  in  favor  of  regulation,  abolition  would  be 
an  error. 

But,  transfer  precisely  the  same  argument  to  the  plane  of 
spiritual  ideas,  and  they  are  at  once  incapable  of  applying 
the  analog}'.  They  allege  that  the  presence  of  a  whole 
world  of  aspirations  and  notions  concerning  a  supernatural 
ideal,  and  the  incontrovertible  fact  that  men's  morals  and 
conduct  are  powerfully  influenced  by  the  shape  which  these 
aspirations  and  notions  take,  is  no  jsroof  whatever  that  they 
are  more  than  brain-phantasms,  as  unreal  in  their  working 
as  in  their  origin.  This  seems  to  me  purely  unphilosophi- 
cal ;  for  I  can  see  no  reason  why  prayer,  as  an  actual  fact 
in  the  universe,  should  not  be  investigated  as  patiently  and 
exhaastively  as  tobacco. 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  51 

And,  while  I  am  dealing  with  this  point,  I  may  draw 
attention  to  the  noteworthy  circumstance,  that  in  proportion 
as  we  ascend  in  the  scale  of  humanity,  as  we  take  a  higher 
race  in  a  higher  stage  of  intellectual  development,  these 
notions  anr  aspirations  become  more  definite,  more  elaborate, 
more  completely  recognizant  of  orderly  supernaturalism. 
We  find  Brahminism  and  Buddhism  above  the  Fetish  creeds  ; 
we  see  Mohammedanism  rising  in  many  particulars  above 
them,  and  Christianity  at  the  summit  of  the  scale  ;  that  is, 
that,  according  as  whole  nations  become  more  "  sane  and 
educated,"  the  nearer  they  are  to  accepting  the  system 
which  jMr.  Tyndall  m-ges  us  to  reject ;  while  it  is  only 
amongst  the  lowest  savages,  of  races  so  degraded  that  the 
English  idiot  is  incomparabl}'  more  decent  and  teachable, 
that  we  find  that  absence  of  the  belief  and  practice  of  praj-er 
to  God  which  is  ofiered  now  as  the  ultimate  test  of  superior 
wisdom.  TVitJi  all  deference,  I  prefer  the  Aryan  to  the 
Andaman  or  the  Papuan  type ;  and  I  cannot  see  how  a 
recurrence  to  the  religious  level  of  the  latter  can  be  other 
than  fatuousl}'  retrograde. 

I  complain  that  the  opponents  of  Christian  praj^er  refuse 
to  face  these  broad  facts,  and  persist  in  ignoring  them,  as  if 
that  made  them  loom  less  large  on  tne  canvas  of  the  world. 
They  are  bound,  if  they  wish  us  to  set  aside  truths  of  such 
visible  magnitude  and  of  such  philosophical  significance,  to 
give  us  some  sufllcient  reason  for  neglecting  the  successive 
strata  of  human  thought,  and  the  vigorous  surface  of  living 


52  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

mental  growth,  and  for  concentrating    om*  attention  on  the 
inorganic  granite  of  Nihilism. 

Again  :  I  have  said  that  I  am  not  frightened  at  the  word 
"evolution."  But  the  word  "  supernatural"  seems  to  startle 
an  ordinary  physicist  into  hysterics  ;  and  he  has  no  presence 
of  mind  left  after  he  has  once  heard  it,  or  suspects  its  coming 
itterance.  If  he  does  listen  to  the  sound  for  a  moment,  it 
is  merely  to  assure  us  that  it  is  exploded  nonsense,  and  will 
vanish  in  a  few  3'ears  through  the  progress  of  science. 
Here,  again,  I  must  draw  attention  to  a  curiously  unsci- 
entific attitude  which  physicists  adopt  toAvards  psycholog}'. 
The}-  never  can  take  in  the  simple  fact  that  human  nature,  in 
its  mental  as  well  as  its  physical  constitution,  has  been  much 
the  same  as  far  back  as  our  records  testif}'.  Hence  they 
confuse  two  radically  distinct  notions,  —  that  of  the  accumu- 
lation of  human  knowledge,  and  that  of  the  advance  of  the 
human  intellect.  Nothing  is  commoner  than  to  find  a  cer- 
tain school  of  biblical  critics  starting  as  new  and  insur- 
mountable some  objection  to  the  authenticity  of  some 
scriptural  document  which  must,  almost  of  necessit}',  have 
presented  itself  to  the  shrewd  dialecticians  who  tasked  the 
powers  of  the  early  Apologists,  but  which  is  imagined  to  be 
naccessible  to  any  save  a  modern  intellect,  as  though  that 
were  something  different  in  kind  from  an  ancient  one.  And, 
conversely,  we  are  told  in  very  clear  and  unfaltering  accents, 
that  there  are  follies  of  belief  and  temperament,  which  liave 
died  out  of  inanition,  as  a  result  of  mental  growth  through 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  53 

the  ages ;  and  that  Christianity  is  one  of  these,  and  is  going 
its  way.     They  are  perpetually  crying  out  to  us,  — 

"  Thou,  too,  shalt  pass,  Galilean:  thy  dead  shall  go  down  to  their  dead." 

The  cleverest  exposition  of  this  theory  was  in  Mr.  Lecky's 
"  History  of  Rationalism  in  Europe,"  wherein  the  decad- 
ence, and,  as  it  was  alleged,  the  disappearance,  of  the  belief 
in  witchcraft,  was  treated  at  length  as  a  palmary  example. 
And  now  the  Spiritualism  of  America,  which  does  not  differ 
one  jot,  in  character  or  method,  from  the  "  white  magic  "  of 
the  middle  ages,  has  spread  with  such  force  and  rapidity, 
almost  since  Mr.  Lecky's  book  appeared,  as  to  count, 
amongst  one  of  the  most  educated  and  hard-headed  popula- 
tions in  the  world,  disciples  variously  estimated  at  from  six 
to  ten  millions.  I  see  no  proofs  of  superiority  in  other 
matters.  I  had  very  much  rather  trust  the  statements,  the 
inferences,  the  judgment,  of  Thucj'dides  in  any  matter  of 
history,  than  Mr.  Fronde's.  I  am  sure  Mr.  Tyndall  would 
not  claim  equality  for  his  own  powers  with  those  of  Aris- 
totle, Bacon,  or  Newton  (though  the  two  latter  were  mis- 
guided enough  to  believe  in  supernaturalism,  and  were 
ignorant  of  many  things  which  Mr.  Tyndall  knows)  ;  and 
I  doubt  whether  any  modern  featf  of  engineering,  as  mere 
exemplifications  of  human  skill  and  power,  exceed  the 
achievements  of  those  who  built  the  Pyramids,  and  raised 
the  vast  temples  of  Karnak  and  Luxor. 


i 


54  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

"  The  age  culls  simples, 
With  a  broad  clown's  back  turned  broadly  to  the  glory  of  the  stars: 
"VVe  are  gods  by  our  own  reckoning,  and  may  well  shut  up  the  temples, 
And  wield  on,  amid  the  incense-steam,  the  thunder  of  our  cars. 

And  we  throw  out  acclamations  of  self-thanking,  self-admiring. 
With,  at  every  mile  run  faster,  '  Oh  the  wondrous,  wondrous  age  ! ' 
Little  thinking  if  we  work  our  souls  as  nobly  as  our  iron, 
Or  if  angels  will  commend  us  at  the  goal  of  pilgrimage. 

Why,  what  is  this  patient  entrance  into  Nature's  deep  resources, 
But  the  child's  most  gradual  learniug  to  walk  upright  without  bane? 
When  we  drive  forth,  from  the  clond  of  steam,  majestical  white  horses, 
Are  we  greater  than  the  first  men  who  led  black  ones  by  the  mane? 

If  we  trod  the  depths  of  ocean,  if  we  struck  the  stars  in  rising. 
If  we  wrapped  the  globe  intensely  with  one  hot  electric  breath, 
'Twere  but  power  within  our  tether,  no  new  spirit-power  comprising; 
And  in  life  we  were  not  greater  men,  nor  bolder  men  in  death." 

Considerations  such  as  these  dispose,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
of  both  the  assertions,  that  belief  in  the  supernatural  is 
doomed,  and  that  the  coming  doom  is  the  result  of  the 
intellectual  progress  of  mankind.  And,  moreover,  if  they 
did  not,  still  these  assertions  belong  to  the  sphere  of  unful- 
filled prophecy  ;  and  it  is  with  the  present  we  have  to  deal, 
not  with  the  future.  The  question  is  not.  How  will  our 
posterity,  in  a  millcnnary  or  so,  account  for  the  disappear- 
ance of  Christianity?  but,  How  is  the  present  and  continued 
existence  of  that  belief  to  be  intelligently  accounted  for 
now? 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  55 

I  think  it  must  be  allowed  as  a  philosophical  axiom,  that 
the  fact  of  any  thing  continuing  to  live  is  a  proof  that  it  has  V 
vitality  in  it,  and  that  such  vitalit^^  must  be  as  true  as  any 
other  fact  in  the  physical  or  moral  universe,  and,  therefore, 
as  fitting  matter  for  scientific  inquiry.     Now,  if  the  word 
"  supernatural  "  be  looked  at  dispassionately,  its  terrors  dis- 
appear.    They  exist  only  in  the  imagination  of  those  who 
persist  in  limiting  the  word  "natural"  to  such  matters  as 
fall  within  the  sphere  of  sensible  observation,  and  who,  if 
they  recall  the  speech  once  made  by  a  j^oung  man  to  Dr. 
Parr,  "  I  make  a  rule  never  to  believe  any  thing  I  do  not 
understand,"  also  remind  one  of  the  answer,  "Then  3'our 
creed  will  be  one  of  the  shortest   on   record."     What  we 
mean  by  supernatural  is  no  more  than  that  the  thing  spoken- — 
of  belongs  to  a  higher  plane  in  creation  than  its  surround-  ^ 
ings.     In  a  world  of  granite,  a  solitary  plant  would  be  super- 
natural ;  for  it  would  possess  the  'unshared  attributes  of  life   \ 
and  growth.     In  a  purely  mineral  and  vegetable  world,  an 
animal  endowed  with  motion  and  volition  would  be  super-    , 
natural ;   and  man  was  supernatural  when  he  appeared  first 
in  the  world  which  lacked  him  as  its  head.     No  preceding 
causes  could  account  for  these  several  manifestations  ;    but, 
when   once  admitted   and   tabulated,    they   fell   within    the 
recognized  order  of  Nature.     All,  therefore,  that  is  implied 
in  the  word  "  supernatural "  is  the  belief  (not  necessarily 
absurd  in  itself) ,  that  there  may  be  existences  higher  in  the  ' 
scale  of  being  than  man,  and  capable,  in  perfectly  orderly 


56  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

fashion,  of  achievements  which  as  far  surpass  his  as  the  con- 
struction of  the  most  intricate  machinerj^  (for  instance,  that 
used  in  making  cards  for  wool,  or  in  Mr.  Babbage's  famous 
engine)  exceeds  the  skill  of  the  beaver.  A  miracle  docs  not 
mean  a  reversal  of  existing  laws,  but  the  manifestation  of 
some  law  unknown  to  and  inexplicable  by  man,  and  can  be 
declared  impossible  onlj'  on  the  hypothesis  that  there  is  no 
_.Gpd,  or  that  God  is  not  a  free  agent. 
,  /  Take  Mr.  Tyndall's  two  examples,  as  cited  earlier  in  this 
1(  paper, —  the  folly  of  praying  that  miasma  may  be  neutralized, 
,  or  that  water  may  run  up  hill.  These  would  be  impossible 
miracles  to  an  ape.  I  can  perform  them  a.ny  day  I  please.  ] 
I  pour  a  few  drops  of  a  wholesome  disinfectant  into  the 
poisoned  water,  and  I  can  drink  it  with  safety.  I  rig  a  i 
force-pump,  and  drive  the  reluctant  fluid  up  through  pipes  ' 
to  the  top  of  the  loftiest  mansion,  and,  lo !  there  are  the  two 
miracles  worked.  If  God  gave  chemists  the  wisdom  to 
invent  disinfectants,  if  he  disclosed  the  secret  of  the  pump 
to  Tomcelli,  why  cannot  he  do  the  like  himself,  at  times, 
without  revealing  his  processes?  Must  he,  of  necessity, 
work  tln-ough  human  agency?  or  (Joes  it  follow,  that,  where 
human  agency  is  visible,  there  can  have  been  no  antecedent 
prajer  ? 

Neither  of  these  questions  can  be  answered,  save  by  the 
high  « pnor*  method,  which  is  not  ver}- convincing  to  logi- 
cians. And  to  take  no  notice  of  them  is,  in  fact,  to  fall  back 
on  the  unavowed  principle  of  Atheism  ;  for  the  distinction 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  57 

between  the  natural  and  supernatural  does  not  belong  to  / 
Scripture,  to  theology,  nor  to  man's  original  consciousness. 
It  is  a  mere  artificial  product  of  modern  speculation,  and 
need  not  have,  most  probably  has  not,  any  true  existence  in 
the  world  of  being.  To  the  Christian  philosopher,  the  words 
indicate  no  more  than  the  known  and  the  unknown  opera- 
tions of  the  same  Almighty  God  ;  and  the  estimate  he  forms 
of  them  is,  that  as  all  the  known  operations  are  orderl}',  and 
free  from  arbitrary'  caprice,  so  the  unknown  ones  are  pre- 
sumably the  like.  And  it  is  n'o  more  difficult  or  unreasonable 
to  suppose  the  immediate  cure  of  blindness  or  paralysis, 
given  an  adequate  reason  for  it,  than  to  acknowledge  the 
ordinary  fact  of  the  development  of  a  full}-  sentient  human  ^ 
being  out  of  an  embrj'onic  germ,  since  each  equally  sur- 
passes our  power,  and  baffles  our  investigation.  ^— ■^ 

I  have  said  that  the  doctrine  of  prayer,  unlike  the  asser- 
tion of  invariable  sequence,  is  the  result  of  intelligent 
thought ;  but  I  have  not  yet  shown  wh}'  it  is  so.  The  facts 
of  geology  establish,  as  I  have  said,  that  change  is  not,  in 
itself,  alien  to  the  Divine  Mind.  Yet  no  help  is  gained,  so 
far,  towards  meeting  the  objections  of  those  who  allow  God's 
freedom  from  all  restraint,  save  that  of  the  necessity  of  his 
own  perfections,  but  who  argue,  that,  though  he  can  change, 
he  will  not,  because  he  already''  orders  all  things  for  the  best.  ' 
This  is  the  subtlest  form  of  Necessism,  but  is  met  at  once  by 
the  problem  of  evil,  moral  and  phj'sical.  Unless  we  fall 
back  on  that  form  of  Pantheism  which  sees  in  evil  as  much 


58  Tlie  Batioiiale  of  Prayer. 

a  part  of  God  as  in  good,  we  are  forced  to  confess  a  per-- 
mitted  antagonism  in  tlie  universe  ;  and  we  find  in  any  case, 
that  a  great  part  of  our  own  intellectual  and  moral  pi'ogress 
is  reached  through  the  conflict  with  evil,  and  through  our 
efforts  to  banish  or  neutralize  its  malign  influence.  Unless 
our  reflective  faculties  are  in  a  very  apathetic  or  a  very 
degraded  state,  we  recognize  this  conflict,  apart  from  its 
salutar}'  effect  on  ourselves,  as  a  duty  to  God  and  to  society ; 
that  is,  we  employ  ourselves  in  doing  what,  on  the  Neces- 
sarian theory,  is  simply  thwarting  God's  will,  since,  if  he 
did  not  mean  evil  to  continue,  he  would  not  fail  to  destroy  it 
himself.  And,  consequently,  no  one  acts  on  this  theory  in 
morals  any  more  than  in  the  practical  concerns  of  life,  — 
sowing  and  reaping,  and  such  like  provisions  for  physical 
needs  ;  so  that  it,  too,  is  universally  rejected,  and  therefore 
ultimately  unthinkable. 

What  does  this  establish  ?  Simpl}'  that  we  constantly  base 
our  action  on  the  fact  that  not  every  thing  is  in  the  best 
possible  state,  but  that  most  things  may  be  and  ought  to  be 
bettered.  If  we  do  so,  there  is  nothing  inconsistent,  but 
rather  the  reverse,  in  asking  God  to  help  us  in  so  bettering 
what  we  think  to  be  wrong  or  cA'il.  And  as  the  Christian 
Scriptures,  in  counuon  with  the  Jewish,  constantly  inculcate 
the  dut}'  of  prater  as  an  element  of  the  war  witli  evil,  it 
seems  hardly  open  to  members  of  any  Cliristian  body  to 
question  its  utility.  Further :  even  the  Necessarian  view 
does  not  logically  exclude  prayer,  though  it  sooms  to  do  so  ; 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  59 

for  it  is  perfectly  conceivable  that  God  may  have  ordained 
prayer  as  a  necessary  preliminary  to  the  obtaining  certain 
results,  and  that  it  enters  into  his  system  of  pre- arrangement 
in  a  manner  which  may  be  compared,  in  some  degree,  to  the 
use  of  stamped  paper  to  give  civil  validity-  to  certain  docu- 
ments amongst  us.  An  unstamped  receipt  for  sums  of  a 
certain  value  is  inadmissible  in  our  courts  as  evidence  of 
payment,  and  even  exposes  the  signatory-  to  a  heavj'  fine, 
albeit  it  is  just  as  complete  historical  and  moral  evidence  as 
the  stamped  receipt.  The  object  with  us  is  to  increase 
national  revenue  with  the  least  onerous  incidence  of  taxa- 
tion ;  and  God's  object  in  requiring  prayer  maj-  very  well  be 
as  simple  and  practical,  though  the  direct  motive  on  man's  ( 
part  may  be  merety  the  obtaining  of  desired  benefits. 

Now,  this  object  on  God's  part  must  needs  be  a  moral 
one,  unless  we  are  content  to  form  a  low  estimate  of  his 
nature.  It  cannot  be  the  mere  desire  to  promote  his  own  ' 
glory  (which  is,  or  used  to  be,  the  hyper-Calvinist  expla- 
nation), since  that  would  bring  him  down  to  the  moral  level 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  any  similar  Oriental  despot  who 
claims  the  adoration  of  his  subjects.  And,  moreover,  such  an 
explanation  would  not  cover  the  area  of  human  prayer,  since 
populous  nations  which  have  no  knowledge  of  the  God  of 
the  Bible  are  none  the  less  in  the  habit  of  making  petitions 
to  unseen  and  superhuman  povvers.  The  vast  and  almost 
universal  extent  of  this  tendency'  cannot  be  philosophically 
accounted  for  in  any  fashion  which  does  not  recognize  the 


6o  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

necessary  function  of  prayer  in  satisfying  certain  inherent 
desires  of  man.  Those  desires  are  to  know,  or  at  least  feel 
after,  something  higher,  stronger,  nobler,  than  himself,  to 
obtain  its  sj'mpath}^  and  to  shelter  himself  under  its  protec- 
tion ;  in  the  spirit  of  Wellington's  despatch  immediately 
after  Waterloo,  "I  have  escaped  unhurt:  the  finger  of 
Providence  was  upon  me."  Now,  Feticism  which  is  in 
some  of  its  forms  ver}-  closel}-  allied  to  the  modern  theolog}' 
of  pb3-sicists,  in  that  it  deifies  the  brute  forces  of  Nature, 
stands  lowest  amongst  religions,  precisely  because  it  does  not 
reach  to  the  notion  of  divine  personality.  H^-draulic  and 
electric  force  are  stronger  and  moi'e  enduring  than  I ;  but  they 
can  only  incidentall}'  affect  me :  whereas  I  can  govern  and 
direct  them,  through  the  conduit,  along  the  telegraph-wires, 
down  the  lightning-conductor.  I  may  use  them,  I  may  some- 
times fear  them  ;  but  I  cannot  appl}-  such  language  as  love, 
trust,  or  sj'mpathy  to  m}^  feelings  towards  them,  or  an}-  other 
natural  forces.  They  do  not  and  can  not  satisfy  \\\\  intel- 
lectual and  moral  cravings, which  require  a  Person  to  content 
them,  precisely  because  I  am  conscious  that  my  own  person- 
ality, which  puts  me  so  much  higher  in  the  scale  of  creation 
than  any  impersonal  or  unreasoning  force,  must  come  from  a 
Person  who  is  at  least  as  liigh  over  me  as  I  am  over  a  gal- 
vanic current.  Were  it  otherwise,  man  would  be,  in  the 
fullest  sense  of  the  word,  self-sufficient,  anil  would  fnid  his 
ideal  in  the  noblest  of  his  own  lace  ;  l)ut  that  is  not  true, 
even  under  the  Comtist  worshi[)  of  humanity.     It  has  be- 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  6i 

come  necessary'  for  it  to  treat  the  most  famous  of  mankind 
merely  as  inferior  saints  of  a  calendar,  and  to  invent  a 
Frankenstein  monster,  a  personification  of  aggregate  man- 
kind, as  the  supreme  object  of  worship,  in  order  to  cheat  that 
hunger  of  the  soul  after  a  perfect  Man,  which  Christianity 
alone  can  assuage,  because  it  alone  tells  us  that  this  perfect 
Man  is  also  perfect  God,  and  thus  brings  into  harmonious 
contact  two  ideas  otherwise  parted  and  irreconcilable. 

If  we  take  from  man  this  craving  for  worship,  and  throw 
him  back  on  himself  alone  for  his  ideal,  all  history  tells  us, 
that  brute  force  and  material  prosperit}'  become  the  only 
recognized  good.  Therefore  it  is  part  of  God's  moral 
education  of  man  to  keep  the  craving  alive,  to  lead  men 
onwards  by  setting  before  them  the  loftiest  conceivable 
standard,  to  soften  hardness  and  to  abase  pride  by  teaching 
man  that  the  All-Holy  is  also  the  All-Merciful,  that  the  Most 
High  is  also  the  most  lowl}-,  in  that  he  rejects  no  suitor,  and 
scorns  no  intercourse. 

But  there  is  only  one  way  to  prevent  the  craving  from 
Avearing  itself  out ;  and  that  is  b}-  satisfying  it,  at  least 
occasional!}'.  If  it  be  conceded  (as  it  must  on  any  theistic 
hypothesis)  that  God  has  implanted  the  longing  in  us,  then 
it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequeLee  of  his  nature,  that  he 
will  not  cheat  his  petitioners.  If  the  experience  of  man- 
kind were,  that  he  neither  heard  nor  answered  prayer,  there 
is  small  probabilit}'  that  its  prevalence  would  still  be  well- 
niah  universal. 


^ 


62  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

On  the  contraiy,  the  whole  induction  is  immeasurably  the 
other  way,  and  asserts  that  God  always  does  hear,  and 
always  does  answer,  devout  and  trustful  prayer,  albeit  he 
mskj  not  always  grant  the  -special  petition  of  an}'^  given 
worshipper.  Here  is  another  case  in  which  unscientific 
prejudice  has  barred  honest  investigation.  It  is  the  plainest 
duty  of  any  man  who  undertakes  to  demonstrate  the  ineffi- 
cacy  of  prayer,  to  inquire  into  the  results  ascribed  to  devout 
intercession  by  all  sincere  Christians.  It  would  be  easy 
enough  for  a  truly  impartial  investigator  to  apply  for  data 
to  a  certain  number  of  ministers  of  religion,  belonging  to 
different  societies,  and  to  ask  them  to  send  in  details  of 
cases  which  satisfy  the  following  conditions  :  — 

1.  Extreme  need  of  obtaining  some  benefit  seeminglj^  or 
really  inaccessible,  by  ordinary  means,  to  the  person  in  want. 

2.  Devout  prayer  on  behalf  of  the  said  person,  whether 
oflfered  by  himself  or  by  others. 

3.  The   obtaining  the   desired  benefit   in   an  unforeseen 
\   manner,  subsequently  to  the  pra3'er. 

I  do  not  at  all  mean  to  suggest  that  only  cases  of  this 
sort  are  likely  to  represent  answers  to  praj^er,  nor  3'et  to 
assert  categorically  that  2  and  3  must  needs  be  connected 
together  as  cause  and  effect ;  but  what  I  urge  is,  that,  if 
sojne  hundreds  or  thousands  of  such  cases  are  discoverable  (a 
thing  of  which  I  have  no  doubt  whatever) ,  the  number  of  the 
coincidences  would  raise  a  very  strong  presumption  in  favor 
of  the  Christian  theory,  and  be  evidence  of  exactly  the  same 


Tlie  Rationale  of  Prayer,  63 

kind  as  is  relied  on  by  physicists ;  that  is,  that  extremely 
frequent  sequence  of  two  events  argues  a  connection  between 
them,  though  it  cannot  exactl}'  prove  it.  I  assert,  in  com- 
mon with  all  men  who  have  had  any  wide  spiritual  experi- 
ence, that  such  answers  to  praj-er  are  amongst  jthe_oixUnary 
facts  of  religion,  and  that  it  is  the  plainest  duty  of  any  one 
who  denies  their  existence^  to  base  his  objection  on  inductive 
disproof,  not  on  a  priori  theories  which  ai-e  simply  contra- 
dicted by  other  a  priori  theories  that  satisfy  a  larger  number 
of  mental  wants.  For,  as  I  have  pointed  out  again  and 
again,  the  Necessarian  doctrine  rcall}^  means  that  God  is  not 
a  free  agent,  and  makes  the  highest  manifestation  of  him 
to  lie  in  unbroken  uniformity :  whereas,  the  other  a  priori 
conception  of  God  as  a  moral  governor  of  the  universe 
assumes,  as  I  think  more  reasonabl}^,  that  he  would  take 
pains  to  make  his  creatures  sure  of  his  existence,  —  a  thing 
he  can  effect  in  no  way  conceivable  to  us,  save  by  convincing 
us,  through  some  superhuman  act  of  his  which  we  cannot 
reduce  under  an}*  known  law,  that  the  onl}^  necessity'  is  his 
will,  and  that  his  laws  are  neither  identical  with  himself^  nor 
superior  over  him.  Such  an  act,  when  made  to  draw  atten- 
tion to  some  spiritual  teaching,  and  having,  therefore,  a  defi- 
nite aim,  we  call  a  miracle. 

And,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  den^'  our  own  powers  and 
operations,  we  cannot  logically  or  reasonabl}'  refuse  this 
power  of  working  miracles  to  God.  I  have  already  shown 
how  man's   skill  can    deal  with  the  two  tasks  which  Prof. 


64  Tlte  Rationale  of  Prayer, 

Tyndall  thinks  are  too  great  for  God.  But  let  us  take 
achievements  on  a  much  larger  scale.  If  it  were  recorded 
in  tlie  Bible,  that  two  men,  ten  thousand  miles  apart,  were 
enabled  to  communicate  with  each  other  instantaneouslj-,  and 
thus  practical!}^  annihilate  space,  is  there  the  smallest  doubt 
that  the  whole  ruck  of  unbelievers,  in  days  before  the  elec- 
tric telegraph,  would  have  ridiculed  the  stor}'  as  an  Oriental 
h^'perbole?  Or  let  us  take  another  kind  of  example. 
Readers  of  old  English  chroniclers  are  familiar  with  the 
accounts  given  of  the  soil,  the  climate,  the  flora,  and  the 
fauna  of  the  East-Anglian  counties,  as  they  were  in  the 
middle  ages.  •  Embankment,  draining,  and  cultivation  have 
changed  all  four,  and  that  in  no  petty  degree,  but  radicall3\ 
Man  has  brought  another  set  of  laws  and  conditions  to  bear 
upon  a  large  tract  of  countr}^,  and  has  changed  the  very 
face  of  Nature  therebj'.  And,  conversely,  man's  neglect  has 
made  a  pestilential  desert  of  the  Roman  Campagna,  once 
thickly  set  with  gardens,  farms,  and  dwellings.  Yet  we  are 
told  to  believe  that  God  cannot  do  what  man  does  on  so 
great  a  scale,  or,  what  comes  to  the  same  thing,  that  he  will 
not  do  what  he  instructs  and  empowers  man  to  do.  For 
here  is  the  dilemma  for  Necessarians  who  plead  God's 
changelessness.  Either  God  wills  an  unalterable  state  of 
things,  or  he  does  not.  If  he  does,  then  man  is  able  to 
counteract  him,  and  is  so  far  stronger  than  he :  if  he  does 
not,  the  argument,  from  invariable  sequence,  falls  to  the 
ffvouad. 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  65 

There  is,  however,  a  sub-form  of  the  same  objection 
■which  I  have  not  yet  directly  met,  although  it  is  already 
answered  by  implication.  I  mean  that  drawn  from  God's  / 
omniscience.  Granted  that  he  can,  and  even  may,  change 
his  apparent  course  of  dealing  with  men,  why  should  it  be 
necessary  for  them  to  tell  him  their  wants,  seeing  that  he 
knows  them  already,  and  is  just  and  loving  enough  to  fulfil 
such  as  are  commendable  or  reasonable? 

The  answer  is,  that  prayer  is  not  for  God's  instruction,  but 
for  ours.  It  is  to  teach  us  dependence  on  him,  not  to  inform 
him  of  any  thing  whereof  he  may  be  presumed  ignorant. 
And,  besides,  this  objection  iS'  onl}'  the  «  priori  fallacy  again. 
K  we  base  our  belief  in  God's  omniscience  on  Holy  Writ, 
then  that  revelation  declares  as  fully  his  requirement  of 
prayer  as  it  does  any  thing  else  concerning  him :  if  we  base 
it  merely  on  our  own  conceptions  of  what  suits  the  character 
of  God,  then  we  find  ourselves  faced  b}^  the  necessity-  of 
also  attributing  direct  sympathy'  with  us  to  him  ;  and  sympa- 
th}'  without  intercourse  is  a  delusion. 

There  is  yet  another  aspect  of  prayer  which  is  too  impor- 
tant to  be  omitted.  I  mean  its  reflex  action  on  those  who  ' 
habitually  practise  it.  So  salutary-  is  it  seen  to  be  even  b^' 
unbelievers,  that  Comte  has  been  forced  to  import  it  as  an 
incongruous  exotic  into  his  system,  Isst  his  disciples  should 
lack  its  influence ;  and  even  Prof.  Tyndall  has  committed 
himself  to  approval  of  it  in  very  emphatic  language.  He 
says,  — 

5 


66  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

"  Wliile  prayer  is  thus  inoperative  iu  external  nature,  it  may  re-act 
with  beneficial  power  on  the  human  mind.  .  .  .  Antl  if  our  spiritual 
authoi'ities  could  only  devise  a  form  in  which  the  heart  might  express 
itself,  without  putting  the  intellect  to  shame,  they  might  utilize  a 
power  which  they  now  waste,  and  make  prayer,  instead  of  a  butt  to 
the  scorner,  the  potent  inner  supplement  of  a  noble  life." 

Merely  premising  that  the  use  of  the  word  "power"  iu 
this  sentence  shows  that  the  word  "  prayer"  cannot  here  be 
taken  as  equivalent  to  praise  or  worship,  but  must  mean  a 
force  of  some  kind  brought  to  bear  on  God,  that  is,  petition 
or  intercession,  I  ask,  in  unfeigned  perplexity.  What  ever 
does  Prof.  T3^ndall  mean?      '^'•Wvc**. 

He  has  told  us  that  he  refuses  to  pray  for  any  interference 
with  natural  laws  ;  and  moral  questions  are  so  bound  up  with 
physical  ones,  that  I  fail  to  see  how  he  could  consistently 
ask  for  any  change  of  temperament  for  himself  or  others ; 
so  that  altogether,  bearing  in  mind  the  limitations  he  puts 
on  divine  power,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  guess  what  kind  of  a  God 
he  is  willing  to  pray  to,  or  what  kind  of  blessings  he  is  pre- 
pared to  pray  for. 

For  myself,  I  can  conceive  no  more  immoral  sham  than 
going  through  a  process  of  the  sort,  fully  conscious  that  I 
did  not  expect  any  result  from  my  petitions,  except  such  as 
might  arise  from  temporary  excitement ;  and  that  I  was 
degrading  man's  highest  privilege,  that  of  sacred  com- 
munion with  his  Maker,  to  the  level  of  a  lit  of  voluntary 
hysterics  over  the  fictitious  sorrows  of  a  sentimental  novel. 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  67 

If,  as  seems  conceded,  prayer  actually  does  produce  a  bene- 
ficial effect  on  those  who  practise  it,  no  explanation  is  valid 
1  or  reasonable  which  does  not  admit  the  truth  of  its  funda- 
mental notion,  —  that  there  is  a  superhuman  Being  who  hearsi 
and  answers  pra3'er ;  for  a  mere  delusion  cannot  produce  \  1 
tangible  and  recurrent  results.  Imagination  is  a  powerful  J)|\ 
agent,  no  doubt,  and  has  often  wrought  singular  effects  on 
the  nervous  s^'stem ;  but  I  do  not  know  of  any  evidence 
in  proof  of  the  permanence  of  such  effects ;  for,  unless  I 
mistake,  the  fancied  benefit  mostly  disappears  with  the  tem- 
porar}-  excitement.  But,  in  this  case,  a  habit  is  generated, 
a  gradual  transformation  of  mind  is  brought  about,  and  the 
whole  man  is  lifted  into  a  higher  and  purer  atmosphere ; 
while  the  .incendiar}^  assassins  of  the  Parisian  Commune 
help  us  to  guess  what  kind  of  morality  is  developed  by  the 
negation  of  prayer. 

And  now  to  say  another  word  about  Prof.  Tyndall's 
crucial  examples.  Let  us  suppose  that  he  had  chosen  them 
more  happily,  and  that  he  had  taken  a  prayer  for  the  suspen- 
sion of  the  law  of  gravity,  or  something  analogous,  as  a 
type  of  petition  which  Christians  do  not  employ.  His 
corollary  from  such  abstention  is,  that  we  are  inconsistent 
and  unscientific,  because  we  refvain  from  asking  certain 
things  which  we  regard  as  impossible,  while  we  ask  for  other 
things  which  in  the  ej-es  of  science  are  equally  impossible. 
This  is  merely  another  instance  of  his  lack  of  clear  thought-^ — 
When  God  has  revealed  his  will  distinctly  to  us  in  the  order 


68  The  Rationale  of  Frayer. 

of  nature,  our  duty  as  affectionate  children  and  loyal  sub- 
jects imposes  on  us  the  obligation  of  conforming  ourselves 
to  that  will.  But  where  he  has  not  so  disclosed  his  inten- 
tions, and  where  contingency  may  enter  in,  we  are  surely 
reasonable,  not  foolish,  in  asking  that  he  may  help  us  in  his 
J  town  way. 

For  example,  if  we  saw  a  child  thrusting  its  hand  into  a 
red-hot  fire,  we  should  scarcely  pra^^  that  the  fire  might  lose 
its  scorching  power,  since  that  would  be  asking  God  to 
reverse  his  own  laws,  But  if  we  sent  up  a  cry  that  a  sud- 
den downpour  of  rain,  such  as  often  occurs,  might  extin- 
guish the  flame  in  time,  or,  failing  that,  should  entreat  for  a 
blessing  on  the  medical  remedies  employed,  where  would  be 
the  unscientific  attitude?  For  as  yet  science  has  not  laid 
down  meteorological  or  pathological  laws  with  such  accuracy 
as  to  declare  that  they  move  in  unchangeable  c^'cles,  or  to 
assure  us,  that,  given  certain  antecedents,  certain  consequents 
must  undoubtedly  follow  ;  and  I  see  no  more  impossibility  in 
God's  way  to  prevent  him  from  directing  a  thunderstorm 
over  a  burning  mass  than  there  is  in  mine  to  hinder  me  ' 
from  using  a  fire-engine  for  the  same  purpose.  I  ma}-  add, 
as  an  exhaustive  refutation  of  this  charge  of  inconsistenc}'' 
against  Christians,  that,  while  they  firmly  believe  that  Christ 
raised  certain  persons  from  the  dead,  the}'  3et  do  not  ask 
for  the  resuscitation  of  deceased  friends,  because  the}^  also 
believe  that  his  ordinarj'  will  is  that  they  should  die  ;  and  1 
therefore   they   conform    themselves    humbly   to    that   will, 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  69 

though,  up  to  the  actual  moment  of  death,  they  may  often 
prolong  their  entreaties  for  recover}'. 

We  are,  in  short,  reasonable  beings,  pra3ang  to  a  reasona- 
ble God,  and  believing  in  the  correlation  of  moral  forces  ; 
and  that  is  the  true  reason  for  rejecting  the  scheme  for  a 
praj-er-gauge  propounded  by  Mr.  T^'ndall's  anonymous  cor- 
respondent. That  gentleman  has  indeed  pointed  out  one 
scientific  objection  to  his  own  proposal,  which  would  deprive 
it,  even  were  quantitative  anal3-sis  of  prayer  a  possibility',  of 
an}'  value  as  a  test.  I  mean  the  impracticability  of  isolating 
the  wards,  so  that  the  influence  of  prayer  should  be  concen- 
trated on  one  onl}'.  But,  setting  aside  this  consideration, 
the  moral  defect  of  the  scheme  is  that  which  is  really  fatal 
to  it. 

It  degrades  worship  and  prayer  to  the  rank  of  a  magical 
incantation,  and  God  to  a  being  weak  enough  to  be  inthralled 
and  compelled  b}-  such  an  influence. 

This  notion  prevails  in  the  Brahmin  sj'stem.  It  is  there 
held,  that  certain  rites  and  sacrifices  have  an  inherent  power 
in  themselves  to  sway  the  gods,  altogether  apart  from  the 
moral  character  or  religious  intention  of  the  ofierer,  and  that 
it  is  even  possible,  given  the  knowledge  and  opportunity,  for 
a  man  not  merel}'  to  subject  his  deities  to  -his  own  will,  but 
to  dethrone  them,  and  assume  their  place  and  attributes. 
Readers  of  the  "•  Curse  of  Kehama  "  will  need  no  digression 
on  this  head.  But  the  God  of  Christians  is  a  Being  at  once 
omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  perfectl}'  moral.     He  cannot  be 


70  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

constrained,  he  may  not  be  deceived,  he  will  not  lend  him- 
self to  such  a  juggle  ;  3'et,  that  the  experiment  should  have 
even  an  initial  value  or  interest,  it  would  be  necessary'  that 
he  should  have  given  his  assent  to  its  being  tried,  either  by  ' 
open  sign  or  by  express  revelation.  The  plagues  of  Egypt, 
the  contest  between  Elijah  and  the  priests  of  Baal,  are  exam- 
ples of  what  I  mean.  But  nothing  now  empowers  us  to  accept 
such  a  challenge,  were  it  even  morally  defensible ;  for  the 
precept  which  binds  us  in  all  such  matters  is,  "Thou  shalt 
not  tempt  the  Lord  th}'  God."  A  writer  in  "The  Spectator" 
of  July  G,  1872,  has  with  much  shrewdness  pointed  out 
another  objection,  which  is,  that  answer  is  promised  onl}'  to 
sincere,  devout,  single-minded  prayer ;  but  that  such  a 
scheme  as  this  necessarily-  involves  insincerit}'  and  double- 
mindedness,  since  the  recovery  of  the  patients,  nominall}' 
asked,  is  not  the  real  motive  of  the  petitioners,  who  are 
merely  trying  to  prove  and  show  off  their  personal  influence 
with  God. 

There  is  yet  another  reason  against  the  plan :  it  is  that 
we  cannot  quantifj"^  prayer  any  more  than  we  can  poetr}^,  art- 
feeling,  or  any  other  lofty  and  imponderable  gift.  I  mean 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  equality  in  the  value  of  inter- 
cession. It  does  not  follow  at  all,  that,  if  you  have  one  per- 
son praying  for  a  thing,  and  ten  persons  praying  for  another 
thing,  the  calculus  of  probabilit}'  is  ten  times  in  favor  ^ 
of  the  second  petition.  If  this  were  so,  prayer  would  be  a 
mere  mechanical  force,  and  of  no  ethical  value  or  signifi- 
cance whatever. 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  71 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  a  gift  of  pra3-er,  just  as  there  is 
of  dramatic  or  artistic  faculty.  I  do  not  mean  the  power, 
common  in  almost  every  Nonconformist  pulpit,  of  making  . 
rhetorical  addresses  of  a  more  or  less  devotional  kind  to  the 
Deity,  but  that  "  effectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous 
man,"  or  woman,  which,  as  an  apostle  tells  us,  "availeth 
much."  I  have  known,  within  my  own  experience,  a  few 
persons  with  whom  it  was  a  common  thing  to  ask  in  prater 
for  various  matters,  and  to  get  them.  I  do  not  assert  that 
the  prayer  brought  the  desired  blessings  ;  but  I  do  allege  that 
the  coincidences,  if  purely  accidental,  were  more  wonderful 
and  inexplicable  than  the  hj^DOthesis  of  a  God  who  can  hear 
and  answer  his  worshippers.  Now,  on  the  quantitative 
theor}^,  this  fact  would  introduce  such  a  disturbance  into  the 
calculation,  that  no  trustworthy  results  could  be  obtained. 
One  petition  from  some  unknown  saint  on  behalf  of  the  neg- 
lected wards,  might  outweigh  in  spiritual  efficacy  the 
aggregate  intercessions  of  the  forces  concentrated  on  the 
experiment. 

Further :  it  happens  that  I  employed  mj'self,  some  consid- 
erable time  ago,  in  speculating  what  would  be  the  practical 
result  on  modern  unbelief,  of  a  public  revival  of  miracles. 
I  have  put  before  me  the  hypothesis  of  m}'  being  m3'self 
invested  with  a  supernatural  power  of  healing,  and  have  asked 
myself  what  would  come  of  it,  assuming  that  the  number  and 
notoriety  of  the  cures  forced  the  ph^'sicists  to  take  the  mat- 
ter up,  and  inquire  into  it,  instead  of  dismissing  it  with  con- 


72  Tlie  Rationale  of  Prayer, 

temptuous  iucredulit}'.  And  I  became  satisfied,  that  unless 
the  power  were  universal  and  persistent  in  me,  that  is,  that 
no  case  failed,  under  an}^  conditions,  its  evidential  value  ' 
would  be  superciliously  disregarded.  The  objectors  would 
insist  on  God's  working  so  as  to  please  them.  The^'  would 
require  a  variety  of  specified  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  in 
ever^^  instance,  bargaining  for  the  nature  and  duration  of 
the  disease,  the  character  and  number  of  witnesses  to  be 
present,  the  uniform  repetition  of  the  cure  under  carefully 
diversified  circumstances,  and  the  like.  Then,  if  God  did 
not  choose  to  submit  himself  to  such  critics,  or  withdrew 
after  a  time  the  power  conferred,  the}^  would  look  to  the 
cessation  of  tlie  miracle,  not  to  its  previous  persistence,  and 
reject  it  accordingl}',  as  a  mere  abnormal  phenomenon,  not 
deserving  of  serious  attention  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
even  if  it  did  continue,  they  Avould,  I  am  convinced,  ascribe 
it  to  the  discovery  on  ^m}'  part  of  some  hidden  pathological 
law,  and  would  deny  the  existence  of  an}'  superhuman  cau-  ' 
sation.  The  evangelists  are  careful  to  let  us  know  that  the  ^ 
miracles  they  ascribe  to  Christ  were  so  far  from  converting 
his  chief  opponents,  that  they  merely  imbittered  their  hos- 
tility. And  I  consequentl}'  do  not  believe  for  a  moment, 
that  even  if  the  proposed  experiment  were  one  which  is 
lawful  for  a  Christian  to  try,  if  it  were  carried  out  to  the 
letter,  as  suggested,  and  if  the  tabulated  result  should 
exhibit  an  enormous  percentage  of  cures  in  the  favored 
ward,  that  the  h3-per-dogmatic  asserters  of  the  impossibility 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  j^t 

of  miracles  would  be  convinced.  They  would  whisper  about, 
that  one  of  the  ph^'sicians  had  got  a  secret  specific  somehow, 
and  was  in  league  with  the  parsons  to  palm  off  his  success 
as  theirs ;  and  they  would  probably  point  their  remarks  by 
showing  how  very  conceivably  that  trick  might  have  been 
played  when  chloroform  was  discovered,  but  not  jet  cur- 
rently known. 

The  temper  of  Naaman,  going  away  in  a  rage  when  told 
to  avail  himself  of  a  secondary  remedy  divinely  indicated, 
while  he  expected  the  pomp  and  dramatic  circumstance  of  a 
public  miracle,  is  common  still.  Reading  the  letter  of  Prof. 
Tj'ndall's  correspondent  between  the  lines,  it  seems  to  me  to 
come  from  the  pen  of  a  materialist  surgeon  or  phj'sician ; 
more  probabl}'  the  foi'mer.  Now,  as  a  theologian,  I  hold 
and  teach  that  God  works,  as  a  rule,  mediately  rather  than 
immediately  upon  men  ;  and  I  thiuk  I  can  show  a  much 
simpler  and  more  scientific  test  of  the  effect  of  prajer  on 
the  healing  of  the  sick  than  the  one  proposed. 

I  mean,  and  all  skilled  pathological  experience  will  bear 
me  out,  that  first-rate  nursing  is  almost,  if  not  quite,  equal 
to  first-rate  medical  advice  in  curative  value.  First-rate 
jiursing  cannot  be  had,  save  as  a  rare  exception,  from  the 
class  whence  the  Gamps  and  Prigs  of  our  hospitals  are,  or 
used  to  be,  recruited.  It  tasks  all  the  refinement,  tact,  and 
educated  sympathy  of  a  lady  to  raise  it  to  the  highest  level. 
Several  years  ago  Sir  Edward  Pany  strove  hard  to  get 
nurses  of  this  stamp  to  volunteer  for  Haslar  Hospital.     Not 


74  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

one  was  forthcoming.  But  the  powerful  religious  move- 
ment which  is  revolutionizing  the  Chiu'ch  of  England  before 
our  e^'es  has  since  created  the  desired  class ;  and  several 
hospitals,  notably  that  of  University  College,  London,  are 
now  nursed  by  Sisters  of  conventual  societies,  who  are  moved 
b}'  piety  to  their  labor  of  love,  and  sustained  in  it  b}-  prayer. 
I  Would  not  a  tal)ular  comparison  of  the  results  severally 
attained  b}"  nurses  who  work  for  God,  and  nurses  who  work 
for  money,  be  of  some  value  as  a  basis  of  calculation?  I 
desire  to  enforce  my  argument,  that,  as  pra3-er  is  unquestion- 
ably the  motive-power  which  produces  the  Sister  of  Mcrc}', 
it  must  be  credited  with  the  benefit  a  patient  derives  from 
having  her  at  his  bedside.  Nor  is  this  plea  weakened  by 
any  allegation  that  a  very  much  improved  class  of  nurses, 
working  primarily  and  avowedly'  for  payment,  can  now  be 
had ;  because  the  rehabilitation  of  nursing  as  a  profession, 
the  lifting  it  up  out  of  the  grade  of  drunken  beldames  to  be 
the  fit  occupation  of  refined  ladies,  was  the  work  of  praying 
men  and  women,  and  of  them  onl}',  whether  we  trace  the 
English  movement  back  to  St.  Vincent  de  Paul,  Pastor 
Fiiedner,  or  Miss  SellonJ 

I  do  not  charge  the  physicists  with  any  exceptional  per- . 
verseness  in  their  attitude  towards  religious  questions.  I 
simply  note  the  facts,  that  any  exclusive  devotion  to  one 
particular  range  of  stud^'  has  a  necessarily  narrowing  influ- 
ence upon  the  intellect ;  and  that  physical  science,  like  law, 
requires   for   its   mastery  such   undivided   and   unremitting 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  75 

attention,  that  it  is  well-nigh  impossible  for  its  fervent 
devotees  to  be  men  of  wide  culture,  and  broad,  statesman- 
like intelligence.  The  superior  mechanical  accurac}'  of 
execution  obtained  in  the  industrial  arts  by  the  minute 
diAasion  of  labor  in  modern  times  has  its  compensating 
drawbacks  in  the  extreme  difficulty  which  is  experienced  in 
obtaining  the  harmony  of  idea  and  effect  of  earlier  work, 
where  the  whole  design,  and  the  chief  toil  of  elaboration, 
proceeded  from  a  single  brain  and  hand.  Similarly,  when 
the  range  of  human  knowledge  was  so  far  limited,  that  it  was 
not  a  wild  impossibility  for  a  great  and  laborious  intellect 
to  survey  it  all,  the  leaders  of  scientific  thought,  the  Aqui- 
nases,  the  Bacons,  the  Descartes,  were  able  to  see  all  forms 
of  knowledge  as-  parts  of  an  harmonious  whole.  But  now, 
when  a  man  devotes  forty  3'ears  of  patient  study  to  butter- 
flies or  to  confervm^  he  does  much  to  enlarge  the  store  of 

\  facts  at  our  disposal ;  but  he  inevitably  cramps  his  own 
\    intellect  in  the  process,  and  becomes  incapable  of  giving  a 

v^  valuable  opinion  on  any  subject  outside  his  routine.  And 
the  special  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  physicists  is,  that 
the  very  fascination  of  their  favorite  pursuit  blinds  them 
altogether  to  its  subordinate  position  in  the  domain  of  knowl- 
edge ;  for  as  the  study  of  organic  bodies  ranks  higher  in 
complexity  and  interest  than  that  of  inorganic  ones,  as  botany 
stands  above  mineralogy,  and  zoology  over  botany,  so  the 
loftiest  range  of  all  earthly  science  must  needs  be  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  highest  conceptions  of  the  highest  of  animals, 
man. 


76  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

Failing  to  understand  this,  they  act  as  intelligently  as  a 
mineralogist  would  do,  if  he  totally  refused  to  allow  the 
problem  of  life,  because  his  own  subjects  of  study  are  in- 
organic. Human  ph^'siology  leads  up,  by  inevitable  process, 
to  human  psycholog}' ;  and,  when  we  reach  that  point,  we  ' 
are  faced  by  the  existence  of  prayer,  not  in  the  lowest,  but 
in  the  highest  natures. 

A  really  scientific  temper  would  sa}',  ' '  The  fact  of  the 
existence  of  this  phenomenon  entitles  it  to  respectful  consid- 
eration. The  fact  that  all  inquiry  in  lower  spheres  of  knowl- 
edge testifies  to  the  truth  of  normal  sequence,  perhaps  of 
law,  makes  it  antecedently  probable  that  prayer  also  belongs 
to  a  sphere  of  law,  and  has  a  definite  purpose  in  the  econ- 
omy of  the  universe ;  since,  if  it  had  no  such  purpose,  it 
would  not,  and  could  not,  exist  at  all.  Therefore,  instead 
of  irrationally  denying  its  efficacy,  let  us  examine  its  practi- 
cal operation,  without  insisting  on  deductively  accommo- 
dating it  to  a  preconceived  hypothesis." 

Now,  the  preconceived  h^'pothesis  which  underlies  the 
whole  argument  against  prayer  is,  that  God,  if  there  be  a 
God,  is  only  a  collective  name  for  an  aggregate  of  blind, 
irrational,  and  inevitable  forces,  not  a  rational  and  moral 
Being,  endowed  with  perfect  free-will  as  an  agent.  Mr.  J.  S. 
Mill's  clear  brain  sees  this  truth  ;  and,  in  marked  contra- 
distinction to  the  narrow  dogmatism  of  Prof.  Tyndall,  he 
allows  at  once  that  the  existence  of  a  personal  God  is  fatal  ' 
to  any  objection  against  miracles.     He  saj-s  in  his  "  Sj-stem 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  77 

of  Logic,  "  In  the  case  of  an  alleged  mii'acle,  the  assertion 
is,  that  the  etfect  was  defeated,  not  in  the  absence,  but  in 
consequence,  of  a  counteracting  cause  ;  namely,  a  direct  inter- 
position of  an  act  of  the  will  of  some  Being  who  has  power 
over  nature,  and,  in  particular,  of  a  Being  whose  will,  being 
assumed  to  have  endowed  all  the  causes  with  the  powers  by 
which  the}'  produce  their  effects,  may  well  be  supposed  able 
to  counteract  them.  A  miracle  (as  was  justly  observed  hy 
Brown)  is  no  contradiction  to  the  law  of  cause  and  etfect : 
it  is  a  new  etfect  supposed  to  be  introduced  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  new  cause.  Of  the  adequacy  of  that  cause,  if 
present,  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  and  the  only  antecedent 
improbability  which  can  be  ascribed  to  the  miracle  is  the 
improbability  that  any  such  cause  existed." 

I  may  cite,  in   considering  the   supposed  improbability, 
those  true  words  of  a  poet  I  have  already  quoted :  — 

"  And  this  age  shows,  to  my  thiukiug,  still  more  infidels  to  Adam,       / 
Than  directly,  by  profession,  simple  infidels  to  God." 

For  the  true  philosophical  deduction  from  the  posited  view, 
that  man,  despite  his  rational  faculties,  his  free-will,  and  his 
high  aspirations,  is  but  the  sport  and  plaything  of  blind, 
irrational  forces,  against  which  he  is  powerless  to  contend, 
and  which  have  no  moral  power  to  pity  or  help  him,  is  that, 
in  like  manner,  the  thinking  part  of  man  must  needs  be 
subjected  to  the  instincts  and  passions  of  his  animal  nature  ; 
so  that  the  gratification  of  his  appetites  becomes  the  loftiest 


78  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

goal  of  his  ambition.  It  is  not  only  the  philosophical 
deduction,  but  the  practical  issue,  as  La  Mettrie,  Lagrange, 
and  to  some  extent  Diderot,  established  alike  hy  precept 
and  example. 

The  loftier  spiritual  philosophy  argues,  with  Kant,  that 
the  supreme  good  consists  of  two  factors,  —  supreme  virtue 
and  supreme  happiness ;  and  that,  to  realize  the  latter,  we 
must  admit  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and,  for  the  former, 
the  existence  of  God.  And,  to  establish  that  harmony  of 
relation  between  the  physical  and  moral  world  which  is 
necessary  to  fully  developed  happiness,  we  are  compelled  to 
assert  that  this  God  is  the  common  som-ce  and  cause  of  both 
nature  and  morality. 

Now,  let  us  push  the  inquiry  a  step  further,  in  the  spirit 
of  another  great  thinker,  Hegel.  What  is  good,  not  in  the 
abstract,  but  concretely,  to  me?  It  is  the  union  of  the 
particular  subjective  will  with  the  universal  objective  will ;  it 
is  the  volition  of  true  reason  in  its  purest  form  ;  it  is  Christ 
saying  for  himself,  and  teaching  us  to  say,  "  Father,  thy 
will  be  done."  It  follows,  therefore,  that  we  cannot  con- 
struct, even  in  thought,  a  moral  world  without  the  introduc- 
tion of  prayer,  which  is  the  conscious  reference  of  our  needs 
and  perplexities  to  a  higher  power  and  a  purer  reason  than 
our  own,  and  that  if  a  true  harmony  of  tlie  universe  exists 
at  all,  if  it  be  no  anarchic  chaos,  but  a  cosmic  order,  — the 
conclusion  to  which  all  theories  of  law  point,  —  there  must 
not  only  be  a  correlation  of  physical  forces  and  a  correlation 


Tlie  Rationale  of  Prayer.  79 

of  moral  forces,  but  the  physical  and  moral  forces  must  be 
also  mutually  correlated,  so  that  prayer  legitimately  enters 
as  a  kindred  ally,  not  as  a  foreign  and  unlicensed  intruder, 
into  the  domain  of  natural  law. 

I  cannot  forbear  from  citing  some  trenchant  paragi'aphs 
from  Emerson,  which  seem  to  me  to  di'ive  this  argument 
home :  — 

"  The  cure  for  false  theology  is  mother-wit.  Forget  your  books 
and  traditions,  and  obey  your  moral  perceptions  at  this  hour.  That 
which  is  signified  by  the  words  '  moral '  and  '  spiritual '  is  a  lasting 
essence,  and,  with  whatever  illusions  we  have  loaded  them,  will  cer- 
tainly bring  back  the  words,  age  after  age,  to  their  ancient  meaning. 
I  know  no  words  that  mean  so  much.  In  our  definitions,  we  grope 
after  the  spiritual  by  describing  it  as  invisible.  The  true  meaning 
of  spiritual  is  real, — that  law  which  executes  itself,  which  works 
without  means,  and  which  cannot  be  conceived  as  not  existing.  Men 
talk  of  '  mere  morality,'  which  is  much  as  if  one  should  say,  '  Poor 
God,  with  nobody  to  help  him ! '  I  find  the  omnipotence  and  omni- 
presence in  the  re-action  of  every  atom  in  nature.  .  .  .  Our  recent 
culture  has  been  in  natural  science.  We  have  learned  the  manners 
of  the  sun  and  of  the  moon,  of  the  rivers,  the  rains,  of  the 
mineral  and  elemental  kingdoms,  of  plants  and  animals,  Man  has 
learned  to  weigh  the  sun,  and  its  weight  neither  loses  nor  gains. 
The  path  of  a  star,  the  moment  of  an  eclipse,  can  be  determined  to 
the  fraction  of  a  second.  Well,  to  him  the  book  of  history,  the,  book 
of  love,  the  lures  of  passion,  and  the  commandments  of  duty  are 
opened;  and  the  next  lesson  taught  is  the  continuation  of  the  in- 
flexible law  of  matter  into  the  subtle  kingdom  of  will  and  of  thought; 
that  if,  in  sidereal  ages,  gravity  and  projection  keep  their  craft,  and 


8o  The  Bationale  of  Prayer. 

the  ball  never  loses  its  way  in  its  wild  path  through  space,  a 
secreter  gravitation,  a  secreter  projection,  rule  not  less  tyrannically 
in  human  history,  and  keep  the  balance  of  power  from  age  to  age 
unbroken.  For  though  the  new  element  of  freedom  and  an  individ- 
ual has  been  admitted,  yet  the  primordial  atoms  are  prefigured,  and 
predetermined  to  moral  issues,  are  in  search  of  justice,  and  ultimate 
right  is  done.  Religion,  or  worship,  is  the  attitude  of  those  who  see 
this  unity,  intimacy,  and  sincerity ;  who  see,  that,  against  all  appear- 
ances, the  nature  of  things  works  for  truth  and  right  forever."  i 

It  seems  to  me  that  ministers  of  religion  are  more  to 
blame  than  any  other  class  for  the  doubts  which  have  been 
cast  on  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  Prof.  Tyndall's  correspond- 
ent, after  a  few  words  on  the  prevalence  of  prayer  for  the 
sick,  adds,  that,  "  in  the  larger  and  more  ancient  section  of 
the  church,  praj^er  still  continues  on  behalf  of  the  deceased, — 
a  custom,  perhaps,  not  less  pious  and  reasonable  than  the 
first-named." 

To  refuse  these  praj^ers,  as  is  done  by  large  numbers  of 
persons  who  do  not  accept  the  entire  Christian  code,  is  to 
exhibit  unbelief  as  deep  and  real  as  Prof.  Tyndall's,  though 
not  covering  so  large  an  area.  For  it  amounts  to  this,  that 
they  deny  God's  power  in  the  realm  of  spirit  as  trul^^  as 
Prof.  Tyndall  denies  it  in  the  realm  of  matter,  since  they 
vii-tually  teach  that  the  disembodiment  of  the  soul  terminates 
God's  ability  to  influence  it,  and  tliat  it  thus  passes,  for  all 
practical  purposes,  out  of  his  jurisdiction.     This  is  the  ne- 

1  Emerson's  Essays  on  the  Conduct  of  Life  :  AVorship. 


The  Rationale  of  Prayer.  8i 

gation  of  omnipotence,  the  negation  of  progress,  and,  ulti- 
mately, the  negation  of  immortality,  and  ought,  if  men  were 
logical,  Avhich  they  happily  are  not,  to  lead  to  the  rejection 
of  Christianity  altogether. 

There  is  another  particular  in  which  the  laxity  and  bad 
faith  of  the  ministers  of  religion  work  to  the  same  end.  I 
mean  the  habitual  omission  of  intercessory  prayer,  save  at 
the  distant  intervals  of  Sunday  worship.  The  English 
Church,  in  common  with  the  other  ancient  communions  of 
Christendom,  enjoins  upon  all  her  clerg}-,  whether  parochial 
or  not,  the  daily  recitation  of  certain  offices,  which  are 
largely  intercessory,  and  further  enjoins  those  who  have 
parochial  charges  to  give  facilities  to  their  congregations  for 
daily  assembling  to  the  same  end. 

But  the  great  majority,  on  no  avowed  plea  whatever  save 
personal  sloth,  evade,  refuse,  or  even  deride,  the  performance 
of  this  plain  obligation  ;  and  it  is  only  the  other  day  that  the 
Ritual  Commission,  in  the  interests  of  those  who  have  sj's- 
tematically  violated  their  voluntary  pledges  during  the  whole 
of  their  clerical  career,  endeavored  to  nullify  this  provision 
by  a  diluting  rubric,  which  invoh'ed  a  moral  bull  of  a  very 
remarkable  kind,  to  the  effect  that  the  object  of  the  provision 
in  question  was  merely  to  testify  to  the  value  set  by  the . 
Church  of  England  on  daily  prayer  and  intercession,  and 
therefore  that  indolent  clerg3'men  might,  for  the  future,  testify 
the  value  they  set  upon  it  by  omitting  it  at  their  pleasure. 

The  only  deduction  possible  from  such  an  attitude  is,  that 


82  The  Rationale  of  Prayer. 

all  persons  who  adopt  it  reall}^  consider  prayer  as  a  decent 
but  nugatory  form,  to  be  emplo^'ed  as  rarely  as  can  well  be 
contrived  without  coming  into  abrupt  collision  with  vulgar 
prejudice  ;  since,  if  they  reall}'  did  believe  in  its  prevalence 
with  God,  and  had  any  clear  prospect  of  the  mass  of  moral 
and  physical  evil  with  which  the^^  are  surrounded,  they 
would  say,  in  the  words  of  Isaiah,  "  I  have  set  watchmen 
upon  thy  w^alls,  O  Jerusalem,  which  shall  never  hold  their 
peace  day  nor  night:  yo,  that  are  the  Lord's  remembrancers, 
keep  not  silence,  and  give  him  no  rest  till  he  make  Jerusa- 
lem a  praise  in  the  earth."  This  would  be  true  belief  and 
true  brotherhood,  and  would  carry  into  action  those  noble 
words  of  a  living  bard  :  — 

"  But  thou, 
If  tliou  sliouldst  never  see  my  face  again, 
Pray  for  luy  soul.    More  things  are  wrouglit  by  prayer 
Thau  this  world  dreams  of.    "Wherefore  let  thy  voice 
Rise  like  a  fountain  for  me,  night  and  day. 
For  what  are  men  better  than  sheep  or  goats 
That  nourish  a  blind  life  within  the  brain, 
If,  knowing  God,  they  lift  not  hands  of  prayer 
Both  for  themselves  and  those  who  call  them  friend? 
For  so  the  whole  round  earth  is  every  way 
Bound  by  gold  chains  about  the  feet  of  God." 

Richard  Frederick  Littledale. 


IT. 


STATISTICAL  INQUIRIES  INTO  THE  EFEI- 
CACY  OF  PRAYER. 

By  FKANCIS  GALTO?^^,   F.  R.  S. 


In  the  same  montli  of  August,  1872,  in  which  Dr.  Littledale  replied 
to  Mr.  Tyndall  in  "  The  Contemporary,"  Mr.  Galton  brought  re-en- 
forcements to  the  attacking  party  by  this  article  in  "The  Fortniglitly 
Review,"  John  Morley,  editor.  Chapman  &  Hall,  publishers,  193 
Piccadilly,  vol.  xii.,  new  series,  xviii.,  old  series,  'No.  Ixviii.,  pp.  125- 
135. 

Mr.  Galton  gained  a  certain  position  by  his  book  on  "  Hereditary 
Genius:  an  Inquiry  into  its  Laws  and  Consequences,"  published  in 
1869.  His  recent  volume  on  "  English  Men  of  Science,  their  Nature 
and  Nurture,"  is  written  to  support  Darwinism  in  its  application  to 
the  human  species.  Mr.  Galton  gives  us  pedigrees  in  this  last  volume, 
from  which  it  appears  that  he  is  own  cousin  to  Mr.  Darwin. 


IV. 


STATISTICAL    INQUIRIES    INTO    THE    EFFICACY 
OF  PRAYER. 

A  N  eminent  authority  has  recently  published  a  challenge 

to  test  the  eflScacy  of  prayer  by  actual  experiment.     I 

have   been   induced,  through   reading   this,  to  prepare  the 

following  memoir  for  publication,  nearly  the  whole  of  which 

I  wrote  and   laid  by  many  years  ago,  after  completing   a 

large   collection   of  data,  which  I  had  undertaken  for  the 

satisfaction  of  my  own  conscience. 

The  efficacy  of  prayer  seems  to  me  a  simple,  as  it  is  a 

perfectly  appropriate   and   legitimate,  subject   of    scientific 

inquiry.     Whether  prayer  is  eflScacious  or  not,  in  any  given 

sense,  is  a  matter  of  fact  on  which  each  man  must  form  an 

/ 
opinion  for  himself.     His  decision  will  be  based  upon  data 

more  or  less  justly  handled,  according  to  his  education  and 
habits.  An  unscientific  reasoner  will  be  guided  by  a  con- 
fused recollection  of  crude  experience.  A  scientific  reasoner 
will  scrutinize  each  separate  experience  before  he  admits  it 
as  evidence,  and  will  compare  all  the  cases  he  has  selected 
on  a  methodical  sj'stem. 

85 


86  Statistical  Inquiries 

The  doctrine  commouly  preached  by  the  clergy  is  well 
expressed  in  the  most  recent,  and  by  far  the  most  temperate 
and  learned,  of  theological  encyclopaedias  ;  namel}',  "  Smith's 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible."  The  article  on  "  Pra3'er,"  written 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Barry,  states  as  follows  :^'  Its  real  objective 
efficacy  ...  is  both  implied  and  expressed  (in  Scripture)  in 
the  plainest  terms.  .  .  .  We  are  encouraged  to  ask  special 
blessings,  both  spiritual  and  temporal,  in  hopes  that  thus, 
and  thus  onl}',  we  may  obtain  them.  ...  It  would  seem  the 
intention  of  Holy  Scripture  to  encourage  all  prayer,  more 
especially  intercession,  in  all  relations  and  for  all  righteous 
objects."  Dr.  Hook,  the  present  Dean  of  Chichester,  states 
in  his  "Church  Dictionary,"  under  "Prayer,"  that*"  the 
general  j)rovidence  of  God  acts  through  what  are  called  the 
laws  of  nature.  By  his  particular  providence,  God  interferes 
with  those  laws  ;  and  he  has  promised  to  interfere  in  behalf 
of  those  who  pray  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  .  .  .  We  may  take 
it  as  a  general  rule  that  we  may  pray  for  that  for  which  we 
may  lawfully  labor,  and  for  that  only." 

The  phrases  of  our  church  service  ampl}'  countenance  this 
view  ;  and,  if  we  look  to  the  practice  of  the  opposed  sections 
of  the  religious  world,  we  find  them  consistent  in  maintain- 
ing it.  The  so-called  "Low  Church"  notoriously  places 
absolute  belief  in  special  providences  accorded  to  pious 
prayer.  This  is  testified  b}'^  the  biographies  of  its  members, 
the  journals  of  its  missionaries,  and  the  "united  prayer- 
meetings"  of  the  present  day.     The  Koman  Catholics  offer 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  87 

religious  vows  to  avert  danger|_tb^  make  pilgrimages  to 
shrines  ;  the}'  hang  votive  offerings  and  pictorial  representa- 
tions, sometimes  by  thousands,  in  their  churches,  of  fatal 
accidents  averted  by  the  manifest  interference  of  a  solicited 
saint. 

A  prima  facie  argument  in  favor  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer 
is  therefore  to  be  drawn  from  the  vpry  p;p.nprfl.1  nsp  of  it. 
The  greater  part  of  mankind,  during  all  the  historic  ages, 
have  been  accustomed  to  pray  for  temporal  advantages. 
How  vain,  it  may  be  urged,  must  be  the  reasoning  that  ven- 
tures to  oppose  this  mighty  consensus  of  belief!  Not  so. 
The  argument  of  universality  either  proves  too  much,  or  else 
it  is  suicidal.  It  either  compels  us  to  admit  that  the  prayers 
of  Pagans,  of  Fetish  worshippers,  and  of  Buddhists  who 
turn  praying- wheels,  are  recompensed  in  the  same  way  as 
those  of  orthodox  believers ;  or  else  the  general  consensus 
proves  that  it  has  no  better  foundation  than  the  universal 
tendency  of  man  to  gross  credulity. 

The  collapse  of  the  argument  of  universality  leaves  us 
solel}'  concerned  with  a  simple  statistical  question.  Are 
praj'ers  answered,  or  are  they  not?  There  are  two  lines  of 
research,  by  either  of  which  we  may  pursue  this  inquiry. 
The  one  that  promises  the  most  trustworthy  results  is  to 
examine  large  classes  of  cases,  and  to  be  guided  by  broad 
averages :  the  other,  which  I  will  not  emplo}^  in  these  pages, 
is  to  deal  with  isolated  instances.  An  author  who  made 
much  use  of  the  latter  method  might  reasonably  suspect  his 


88  Statistical  Inquiries 

own  judgmeut:  he  would  certainly  run  the  risk  of  being 
suspected  by  others  in  choosing  one-sided  examples. 

The  principles  are  broad  and  simple  upon  which  our 
inquiry'  into  the  efficacy  of  pra3'er  must  be  established.  We 
must  gather  cases  for  statistical  comparison,  in  which  the 
same  object  is  keenly  pursued  b}^  two  classes,  —  similar  in 
their  phj^sical,  but  opposite  in  their  spiritual  state  ;  the  one 
class  being  prayerful,  the  other  materialistic.  Prudent 
pious  people  must  be  compared  with  prudent  materialistic 
people,  and  not  with  the  imprudent  nor  the  vicious.  Sec- 
ondly, we  have  no  regard,  in  this  inquiry,  to  the  course  by 
which  the  answer  to  praj^ers  may  be  supposed  to  operate. 
We  simply  look  to  the  final  result,  —  whether  those  who  pray 
attain  their  objects  more  frequently  than  those  who  do  not 
pray,  but  who  live,  in  all  other  respects,  under  similar  condi- 
tions^  Let  us  now  apply  our  principles  to  diflerent  cases. 

A  rapid  recovery  from  disease  may  be  conceived  to  depend 
on  many  causes  besides  the  reparative  power  of  the  patient's 
constitution.  A  miraculous  quelling  of  the  disease  may  be 
one  of  these  causes :  another  is  the  skill  of  the  physician 
or  of  the  nurse :  another  is  the  care  that  the  patient  takes 
of  himself.  In  our  inquiry,  whether  prayerful  people  recover 
more  rapidly  than  others,  under  similar  circumstances,  we 
need  not  complicate  the  question  by  endeavoring  to  learn 
the  channel  through  which  the  patient's  pra3'er  may  have 
reached  its  fulfilment.  It  is  foreign  to  our  present  purpose 
to  ask  if  there  be  an}'  signs  of  a  miraculous  quelling  of  the 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  89 

disease,  or  if,  through  the  grace  of  God,  the  physician  had 
showed  unusual  wisdom,  or  the  nurse  or  the  patient  unusual 
discretion.  'We  simply  look  to  the  main  issue,  —  do  sick 
persons  who  pray,  or  are  prayed  for,  recover,  on  the  average, 
more  rapidly  than  others  ?- 

It  appears,  that,  in  all  countries  and  in  all  creeds,  the 
priests  urge  the  patient  to  pray  for  his  own  recovery,  and 
the  patients'  friends  to  aid  him  with  their  prayers,  but 
that  the  doctors  make  no  account  whatever  of  their  spiritual 
agencies,  unless  the  oJEBce  of  priest  and  medical  man  be 
combined  in  the  same  individual.  The  medical  works  of 
modern  Europe  teem  with  records  of  individual  illness  and 
of  broad  averages  of  disease  ;  but  I  have  been  able  to  dis- 
.  cover  hardlj'  any  instance  in  which  a  medical  man  of  any 
repute  has  attributed  recovery  to  the  influence  of  prayer. 
There  is  not  a  single  instance,  to  my  knowledge,  in  which 
papers  read  before  statistical  societies  have  recognized  the 
\\  agency  of  prayer,  either  on  disease  or  on  any  thing  else. 
The  universal  habit  of  the  scientific  world  to  ignore  the 
agency  of  prayer  is  a  very  important  fact.  To  fully  appre- 
ciate the  "eloquence  of  the  silence"  of  medical  men,  we 
must  bear  in  mind  the  care  with  which  they  endeavor  to 
assign  a  sanatory  value  to  every  influence.  Had  prayers  for 
the  sick  any  notable  eflect,  it  is  incredible  but  that  the 
doctors,  who  are  always  on  the  watch  for  such  things,  should 
have  observed  it,  and  added  their  influence  to  that  of  the 
priests  towards  obtaining  them  for  every  sick  man.     If  they 


90  Statistical  Inquiries 

abstain  from  doing  so,  it  is  not  because  their  attention  has 
never  been  awakened  to  the  possible  efficacy  of  pra3'er,  but, 
on  the  contrary-,  that,  although  they  have  heard  it  insisted  on 
from  childhood  upwards,  they  are  unable  to  detect  its  influ- 
ence. Most  people  have  some  general  belief  in  the  objective 
efficacy  of  prayer ;  but  none  seem  willing  to  admit  its 
action  in  those  special  cases  of  which  they  have  scientific 
cognizance. 

Those  who  may  wish  to  pursue  these  inquiries  upon  the 
eflfect  of  prayer  for  the  restoration  of  health  could  obtain 
abundant  materials  from  hospital  cases,  and  in  a  different 
way  from  that  proposed  in  the  challenge  to  which  I  referred 
in  the  beginning  of  these  pages.  There  are  many  common 
maladies  whose  course  is  so  thoroughly  well  understood  as 
to  admit  of  accurate  tables  of  probability  being  constructed 
for  their  duration  and  result.  Such  are  fractures  and  ampu- 
tations. Now,  it  would  be  perfectly"  practicable  to  select  out 
of  the  patients  at  different  hospitals,  under  treatment  for 
fractm-es  and  amputations,  two  considerable  groups, —  the 
one  consisting  of  markedly  religious  and  piously  befriended 
individuals,  the  other  of  those  who  were  remarkably  cold- 
hearted  and  neglected.  An  honest  comparison  of  their 
respective  periods  of  treatment,  and  the  results,  would  man- 
ifest a  distinct  proof  of  the  eflicacy  of  prayer,  if  it  existed, 
to  even  a  minute  fraction  of  the  amount  that  religious 
teachers  exhort  us  to  believe. 

An   inquiry  of  a  somewhat  similar  nature  may  be  made 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 


91 


into  the  loiigevitj'  of  persons  whose  lives  are  prayed  for,  ^ 
also  that  of  the  praying  classes  generally ;  and  in  both  these 
cases  we  can  easily  obtain  statistical  facts.  The  public 
praj-er  for  the  sovereign  of  every  state,  Protestant  or 
Catholic,  is,  and  has  been,  in  the  spirit  of  our  own,  "  Grant 
her  in  health  long  to  live."  Now,  as  a  simple  matter  of 
fact,  has  this  prayer  a,nj  efflcac}'?  There  is  a  memoir  hy 
Dr.  Gu}-,  in  "The  Journal  of  the  Statistical  Society"  (vol. 
xxii.  p.  355),  in  which  he  compares  the  mean  age  of  sover- 
eigns with  that  of  other  classes  of  persons.  His  results  are 
expressed  in  the  following  table  :  — 


MEAX  AGE  ATTAINED  BY  MALES  OF  VARIOUS  CLASSES  WHO  HAD  SUR- 
VIVED THEIR  THIRTIETH  YEAR,  FROM  1758  TO  1843.  DEATHS  BY 
ACCIDENT   OR  VIOLENCE   ARE   EXCLUDED. 


Members  of  royal  houses .     .     . 

Clergy  

Lawyers 

Medical  profession 

English  aristocracy 

Gentry 

Trade  and  commerce  .... 
Officers  in  the  royal  navy  .  . 
English  literature  and  science  . 

Officers  of  the  army 

Fine  arts 


97 
945 
294 
244 
1,179 
1,(!32 
513 
3()6 
395 
5(59 
239 


64.04 
C9.49 
(J8.14 
(i7.31 
(57.31 
70.22 
(58.74 
G8.40 
67.55 
67.07 
65.96 


Eminent 
men.l 


66.42 
(56.51 
67.07 


65.22 
64.74 


The   sovereigns  are   literally  the  shortest  lived  of  all  who    ' 
have  the  advantage  of  affluence.     The  prayer  has,  therefore, 
no  efficacy,  unless  the  veiy  questionable  hypothesis  be  raised, 
that  the  conditions  of  royal  life  may  naturally  be  3'et  more 

1  The  eminent  men  are  those  whose  lives  are  recorded  in  Chalmers's 
Biogi'aphy,  with  some  additions  from  the  Annual  llegister. 


92  Statistical  Inquiries 

fatal,  and  that  their  influence  is  partly,  though  iucompletel}', 
neutralized  b}''  the  effect  of  public  prayers. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  same  table  collates  the  longevity 
of  clerg}',  law3-ers,  and  medical  men.  We  are  justified  in 
considering  the  clergy  to  be  a  far  more  pra3'erful  class  than 
either  of  the  other  two.  It  is  their  profession  to  pray  ;  and 
they  have  the  practice  of  offering  morning  and  evening 
family  prayers  in  addition  to  their  private  devotions.  A 
reference  to  any  of  th6  numerous  published  collections  of 
family  prayers  will  show  that  they  are  full  of  petitions  for 
temporal  benefits.  We  do  not,  however,  find  that  the  clergy 
are  in  an}-  way  more  long  lived  in  consequence.  It  is  true, 
that  the  clerg}-,  as  a  whole,  show  a  life- value  of  69.49  as 
against  68.14  for  the  lawyers,  and  67.31  for  the  medical 
men ;  but  the  easy  country-life  and  family  repose  of  so 
many  of  the  clergy  are  obvious  sanatory  conditions  in  their 
favor.  This  diflfereuce  is  reversed  when  the  comparison  is 
made  between  distinguished  members  of  the  thi-ee  classes ; 
that  is  to  say,  between  persons  of  sufficient  note  to  have 
had  their  lives  recorded  in  a  biographical  dictionary.  When 
we  examine  this  categor3%  the  value  of  life  among  the 
clergy,  lawyers,  and  medical  men,  is  as  66.42,  66.51,  and 
67.04  respectively' ;  the  clergy  being  the  shortest  lived  of 
the  three.  Hence  the  prayers  of  the  clergy  for  protection^*- 
against  the  perils  and  dangers  of  the  night,  for  protection 
during  the  day,  and  for  recovery  from  sickness,  appear  to  be 
futile  in  result. 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  93 

In  my  work  on  "Hereditary  Genius,"  and  in  the  chai)ter 
on  "Divines,"  I  have  worked  out  the  subject  with  some 
minuteness  on  other  data,  but  with  precise!}'  the  same  result, 
I  show  that  the  divines  are  not  specially  favored  in  those 
worldl}'  matters  for  which  they  naturally  pray,  but  rather  the 
contrar}-,  —  a  fact  which  I  ascribe,  in  part,  to  their  having, 
as  a  class,  indifferent  constitutional  vigor.  I  give  abundant 
reason  for  all  this,  and  do  not  care  to  repeat  myself ;  but  I 
should  be  glad  if  such  of  the  readers  of  this  present  paper 
who  may  be  accustomed  to  statistics  would  refer  to  the 
chapter  I  have  mentioned.  They  will  find  it  of  use  in  con- 
firming what  I  say  here.  They  will  believe  me  the  more 
when  I  say  that  I  have  taken  considerable  pains  to  get  at 
the  truth  in  the  questions  raised  in  this  present  memoir,  and 
that,  when  I  was  engaged  upon  them,  I  worked,  as  far  as 
m}'  material  went,  with  as  much  care  as  I  gave  to  that 
chapter  on  "Divines;"  and,  lastly,  they  will  understand, 
that,  when  writing  the  chapter  in  question,  I  had  all  this 
material  by  me  unused,  which  justified  me  in  speaking  out 
as  decidedl}'  as  I  did  then. 

A  further  inquiry  ma}'  be  made  into  the  duration  of  life 
among  missionaries.  We  should  lay  greater  stress  upon 
their  mortality  than  upon  that  of  the  clergy,  because  the 
laudable  object  of  a  missionary's  career  is  rendered  almost 
nugatory  by  his  early  death.  A  man  goes,  say,  to  a  tropical 
climate,  in  the  prime  of  manhood,  who  has  the  probability 
of  many  years  of  useful  life  before  him,  had  he  remained  at 


94  Statistical  Inquiries 

home.  He  has  the  certainty  of  being  able  to  accomplish 
sterling  good  as  a  missionary,  if  he  should  live  long  enough 
to  learn  the  language  and  habits  of  the  countr3^  In  the 
interval,  he  is  almost  useless.  Yet  the  painful  experience 
of  man}'  3'ears  shows  oul}'  too  clearly  that  the  missionary  is 
not  supernaturally  endowed  with  health.  He  does  not  live 
longer  than  other  people.  One  missionary  after  another 
dies  shortl}^  after  his  arrival.  The  work  that  la}^  almost 
within  the  grasp  of  each  of  them  lingers  incompleted. 

It  must  be  here  repeated,  that  comparative  immunity  from 
disease  compels  the  suspension  of  no  purely  material  law, 
if  such  an  expression  be  permitted.  Tropical  fever,  for 
example,  is  due  to  many  subtle  causes  which  are  partly 
under  man's  control.  A  single  hour's  exposure  to  sun,  wet, 
or  fatigue,  or  mental  agitation,  will  determine  an  attack. 
Now,  even  if  God  acted  only  on  the  minds  of  the  missiona- 
ries, his  action  might  be  as  much  to  the  advantage  of  their 
health  as  if  he  wrought  a  physical  miracle.  He  could  dis- 
incline them  to  take  those  courses  which  might  result  in 
mischance,  such  as  the  forced  march,  the  wetting,  the  absti- 
nence from  food,  or  the  night-exposure,  an}-  one  of  which 
was  competent  to  develop  the  fever  that  struck  them  down. 
We  must  not  dwell  upon  the  circumstances  of  individual 
cases,  and  say,  "  This  was  a  providential  escape,"  or,  "  That 
was  a  salutary  chastisement:  "  but  we  must  take  the  broad 
averages  of  mortality  ;  and,  Avhcn  we  do  so,  we  find  that  the 
missionaries  do  not  form  a  favored  class. 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  95 

The  efficacy  of  prajer  may  yet  further  be  tested  by  in- 
quiry into  the  proportion  of  deaths  at  the  time  of  birth 
among  the  children  of  the  praying  and  the  non-praying 
classes.  The  solicitude  of  parents  is  so  powerfully  directed 
toward  the  safety  of  their  expected  oflFspring,  as  to  leave  nc 
roona  lo-doubt  that  pious  j)aren^  prayferyently  for  it,  espe-* 
cially  as  death  before  baptism  is  considered  a  most  seriou^i 
evil  by  many  Christians.  However,  the  distribution  of 
still-births  appears  wholly  unaffected  by  piety.  The  pro- 
portion, for  instance,  of  the  still-births  published  in  "The 
Record  "  newspaper,  and  in  "  The  Times,  was  found,  by  me, 
on  an  examination  of  a  particular  period,  to  bear  an  identi- 
cal relation  to  the  total  number  of  deaths.  This  inquiry 
might  easily  be  pursued  by  those  who  considered  that  more 
ample  evidence  was  required. 

When  we  pray  in  our  Liturgy,  "  that  the  nobility  may  be 
endued  with  grace,  wisdom,  and  understanding,"  we  pray 
for  that  which  is  clearly  incompatible  with  insanit3\  Does 
that  frightful  scourge  spare  our  nobilit}'?  Does  it  spare 
veiy  religious  people  more  than  others  ?  The  answer  is  an 
emphatic  negative  to  both  of  these  questions.  The  nobility 
—  probably  from  their  want  of  the  wholesome  restraints  felt 
in  the  humble  walks  of  life,  and  from  their  intermarriages  — 
and  the  very  religious  people  of  all  denominations  —  proba- 
bl}'  from  their  meditation  on  hell  —  are  peculiarly  subject  to 
it.     Religious  madness  is  very  common  indeed. 

As  I  have  already  hinted,  I  do  not  propose  any  special 


96  Statistical  Inquiries 

inquiry  whether  the  general  laws  of  ph3-sical  nature  are  ever 
suspended  in  fulfilment  of  praj-er ;  whether,  for  instance, 
success  has  attended  the  occasional  prayers  in  the  Liturgj'^, 
when  they  have  been  used  for  rain,  for  fair  weather,  for  the 
stilling  of  the  sea  in  a  storm,  or  for  the  abatement  of  a 
pestilence.     I  abstain  from  doing  so  for  two  reasons. 

First,  if  it  is  proved  that  God  does  not  answer  one  large 
class  of  prayers  at  all,  it  would  be  of  less  importance  to 
pursue  the  inquiry.  Secondly,  the  modern  feeling  of  this 
country  is  so  opposed  to  a  belief  in  the  occasional  suspen- 
sion of  the  general  laws  of  nature,  that  an  English  reader 
would  merely  smile  at  such  an  investigation. 

If  we  are  satisfied  that  the  actions  of  man  are  not  influ- 
enced by  prayer,  even  through  the  subtle  influence  of  his 
thoughts  and  will,  the  only  probable  form  of  agenc}"  will 
have  been  disproved,  and  no  one  would  care  to  advance  a 
claim  in  favor  of  direct  physical  interfei'cnces. 

Biographies  do  not  show  that  devotional  influences  have 
clustered  in  any  remarkable  degree  round  the  jouth  of  those, 
who,  whether  by  their  talents  or  social  position,  have  left  a 
mark  upon  our  English  history-.  Lord  Campbell,  in  his 
Preface  to  his  "Lives  of  the  Chancellors,"  says,  "There  is 
no  office  in  the  history  of  any  nation  that  has  been  filled  with 
such  a  long  succession  of  distinguished  and  interesting  men 
as  the  office  of  lord-chancellor,"  and  that,  "  generallj' 
speaking,  the  most  eminent  men,  if  not  the  most  virtuous, 
have  been  selected  to  adorn  it."     His   implied   disparage- 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  97 

ment  of  their  piet}^  is  fully  sustained  by  an  examination 
of  their  respective  biographies,  and  b}'  a  taunt  of  Horace 
Walpole,  quoted  in  the  same  Preface,  An  equal  absence 
of  remarkable  devotional  tendencies  may  be  observed  in  the 
lives  of  the  leaders  of  great  political  parties.  The  founders 
of  our  great  families  too  often  owed  their  advancement  to 
trick}-  and  time-serving  courtiership.  The  belief  so  fre- 
quentlj^  expressed  in  the  Psalms,  that  the  descendants j)f  the 
righteous  shall  continue,  and  that  those  of  the  wicked  shall 
surely  fail,  is  not  fulfilled  in  the  history  of  our  English  peer- 
age. Take,  for  instance,  the  highest  class,  that  of  the  ducal 
houses.  The  influence  of  social  position  in  this  country  is 
so  enormous,  that  the  possession  of  a  dukedom  is  a  power 
that  can  hardly  be  understood  without  some  sort  of  calcula- 
tion. There  are,  I  believe,  only  twenty-seven  dukes  to  about 
eight  millions  of  adult  male  Englishmen,  or  about  three 
dukes  to  each  million  ;  yet  the  cabinet  of  fourteen  ministers 
which  governs  this  countr}-,  and  India  too,  commonly  con- 
tains one  duke,  often  two,  and  in  recent  times  three.  The 
political  privilege  inherited  with  a  dukedom  in  this  countrj^ 
is,  at  the  lowest  estimate,  many  thousand-fold  above  the 
average  birthright  of  Englishmen.  What  was  the  origin  of 
these  ducal  families,  whose  influence  on  the  destiny  of  Eng- 
land and  her  dependencies  is  so  enormous?  Were  their 
founders  the  eminentlj-  devout  children  of  eminently  pious 
parents?  Have  they  and  their  ancestors  been  distinguished 
among  the  praj^ng  classes  ?  Not  so.  I  give  in  a  footnote 
7 


98  Statistical  Inquiries 

a  list  of  their  names/  which  recalls  man}^  a  deed  of  patriot- 
ism, valor,  and  skill,  many  an  instance  of  eminent  merit  of 
the  worldly  sort,  —  which  we  Englishmen  honor  six  daj^s  out 
of  the  seven,  —  man}^  scandals,  many  a  disgrace,  but  not,  on 
the  other  hand,  a  single  instance  known  to  me  of  eminently 
prayerful  qualities.  Four,  at  least,  of  the  existing  ducal 
houses,  are  unable  to  claim  the  title  of  having  been  raised 
into  existence  through  the  devout  habits  of  their  progenitors, 
because  the  families  of  Buccleuch,  Grafton,  St.  Albans,  and 
Richmond,  were  thus  highly  ennobled  solely  on  the  ground 
of  their  being  descended  from  Charles  II.  and  four  of  his 
mistresses ;  namely,  Lucy  Walters,  Barbara  Villiers,  Nell 
Gwynne,  and  Louise  de  Querouaille.  The  Dukedom  of 
Cleveland  may  almost  be  reckoned  as  a  fifth  instance. 

The  civil  liberty  we  enjo}'  in  England,  and  the  energy  of 
our  race,  have  given  rise  to  a  number  of  institutions,  socie- 
ties, commercial  adventures,  political  meetings,  and  combi- 
nations of  all  sorts.  Some  of  these  are  exclusively  clerical, 
some  lay,  and  others  mixed.  It  is  impossible  for  a  person 
to  have  taken  an  active  share  in  social  life  without  having 
had  abundant  means  of  estimating  for  himself,  and  of  hear- 
ing the  opinion  of  others,  on  the  value  of  a  preponderating 
clerical  element  in  business  committees.     For  ni}'  own  part, 

1  Abercorn,  Argyll,  Athole,  Beaufort,  Bedford,  Buccleuch,  Buck- 
ingham, Cleveland,  Devonshire,  Grafton,  Hamilton,  Leeds,  Leinster, 
Manchester,  Marlborough,  Montrose,  Newcastle,  Norfolk,  Northumber- 
land, Portland,  rdchniond,  Itoxburghe,  Paitlaud,  St.  Albans,  Somerset, 
Sutherland,  Wellington. 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  99 

I  never  heard  a  favorable  one.  The  procedure  of  convoca- 
tion, -which,  like  all  exclusively  clerical  meetings,  is  opened 
with  praj'er,  has  not  inspired  the  outer  world  with  much 
respect.  The  histories  of  the  great  councils  of  the  church 
are  most  painful  to  read.  There  is  reason  to  expect  that 
devout  and  superstitious  men  should  be  unreasonable  ;  for  a 
person  who  believes  his  thoughts  to  be  inspired,  necessarily 
accredits  his  prejudices  with  divine  authority.  He  is,  there- 
fore, little  accessible  to  argument,  and  he  is  intolerant  of 
those  whose  opinions  differ  from  his,  especially  on  first  prin- 
ciples. Consequently  he  is  a  bad  coadjutor  in  business  a 
matters.  It  is  a  common  week-day  opinion  of  the  world 
that  praying  people  are  not  practical. 

Again :  there  is  a  large  class  of  instances,  where  an  enter- 
prise on  behalf  of  pious  people  is  executed  b}^  the  agency 
of  the  profane.  Do  such  enterprises  prosper  beyond  the 
average?  For  instance,  a  vessel  on  a  missionary  errand  is 
navigated  by  ordinary  seamen.  A  fleet,  followed  by  the 
praj'ers  of  the  English  nation,  carries  re-enforcements  to 
quell  an  Indian  mutin}'.  We  do  not  care  to  ask  whether  the 
result  of  the  praj-ers  is  to  obtain  favorable  winds,  but  simply 
whether  they  ensue  in  a  propitious  voyage,  whatever  may 
have  been  the  agencies  by  which  that  result  was  obtained. 
The  success  of  voyages  might  be  due  to  many  other  agen- 
cies than  the  suspension  of  the  physical  laws  that  control 
the  Avinds  and  currents  ;  just  as  we  showed  that  a  rapid 
recovery  from  illness  might  be  due  to   other  causes   than 


lOO  Statistical  Inquiries 

direct  interference  with  cosmic  order.  It  might  have  been 
put  into  the  captain's  heart  to  navigate  in  that  course,  and 
to  perform  those  acts  of  seamanship  which  proved  links  in  a 
chain  that  led  to  an  eventual  success.  A  very  small  matter 
would  suffice  to  make  a  great  difference  in  the  end.  A 
vessel  navigated  by  a  man  who  was  a  good  forecaster  of 
weather,  and  an  accomplished  hydrographer,  would  consid- 
erably outstrip  another  that  was  deficient  in  so  accomplished 
a  commander,  but  otherwise  similarly  equipped.  The  per- 
fectly instructed  navigator  would  deviate  from  the  most 
direct  course  by,  perhaps,  some  mere  trifle,  first  here,  then 
there,  in  order  to  bring  his  vessel  within  favoring  slants  of 
wind  and  advantageous  currents.  A  ship  commanded  b}^  a 
captain,  and  steered  by  a  sailor,  whose  hearts  were  miracu- 
lously' acted  upon  in  answer  to  prayer,  would  unconsciously, 
as  by  instinct,  or  even,  as  it  were,  by  mistake,  perform 
these  deviations  from  routine,  which  would  load  to  ultimate 
success. 

The  missionaries  who  are  the  most  earnestly  prayed  for 
are  usually  those  who  are  on  routes  where  there  is  little  traffic, 
and  therefore  where  there  is  more  opportunity  for  the  effects 
of  secret  providential  overruling  to  display  themselves  than 
among  those  who  sail  in  ordinar}'  sea-vo^'ages.  In  the  usual 
sea-routes,  a  great  deal  is  known  of  the  peculiarities  of  the 
seasons  and  currents,  and  of  the  whereabouts  of  hidden 
dangers  of  all  kinds :  their  average  risk  is  small,  and  the 
insurance  is  low.     But,  when  vessels  are  bound  to  ports  like 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  loi 

those  sought  by  the  missionaries,  the  case  is  different.  The 
risk  that  attends  their  vo3-ages  is  largely  increased  ;  and  the 
insurance  is  proportionately  raised.  But  is  the  risk  equally 
increased  in  respect  to  missionary  vessels,  and  to  those  of 
traders  and  of  slave-dealers?  The  comparison  between  the 
fortune  that  attends  prayerful  and  non-prayerful  people  may 
here  be  most  happily  made.  The  missionaries  are  eminently 
among  the  former  category  ;  and  the  slave-dealers  and  the 
traders  we  speak  of,  in  the  other.  Traders  in  the  unhealthy 
and  barbarous  regions  to  which  we  refer  •  are  notoriously  the 
most  godless  and  reckless  (on  the  broad  average)  of  any 
of  their  set.  We  have,  unfortunately,  little  knowledge  of 
the  sea-risks  of  slavers,  because  the  rates  of  their  insm-ance 
involve  the  risk  of  capture.  There  is,  however,  a  universal 
testimony,  in  the  parliamentary  reports  on  slavery,  to  the 
excellent  and  skilful  manner  in  which  these  vessels  are  sailed 
and  navigated,  which  is  a  prima  facie  reason  for  believing 
their  sea-risks  to  be  small.  As  to  the  relative  risks  run  by 
ordinary  traders  and  missionary  vessels,  the  insurance  offices 
absolutely  ignore  the  slightest  difference  between  them. 
They  look  to  the  class  of  the  vessel,  and  to  the  station  to 
which  she  is  bound,  and  to  nothing  else.  The  notion  that  a 
missionary  or  other  pious  enteq^rise  carries  any  immunity 
from  danger  has  never  been  entertained  by  insurance  com- 
panies. 

,^To  proceed  with  our  inquiry,  whether  enterprises  in  behalf 
of  pious  people  succeed  better  than  others  when  they  are 


I02  Statistical  Inquiries 

intrusted  to  profane  hands,  we  ma}'  ask,  Is  a  bank  or  other 
commercial  undertalving  more  secure  when  devout  men  are 
among  its  shareholders,  or  when  the  funds  of  pious  people, 
or  charities,  or  of  religious  bodies,  are  deposited  in  its  keep- 
ing, or  when  its  proceedings  are  opened  with  prayer,  as  was 
the  case  with  the  disastrous  Royal  British  Bank?  It  is 
impossible  to  sa}'  Yes.  There  are  far  too  many  sad  experi- 
ences of  the  contrary.  If  prayerful  habits  had  influence  on 
temporal  success,  it  is  very  probable,  as  we  must  again 
repeat,  that  insurance  offices,  of  at  least  some  descriptions, 
would  long  ago  have  discovered,  and  made  allowance  for  it. 
It  would  be  most  unwise,  from  a  business  point  of  view,  to 
allow  the  devout,  supposing  their  greater  longevity  even 
probable,  to  obtain  annuities  at  the  same  low  rates  as  the 
profane.  Before  insurance  companies  accept  a  life,  the}' 
make  confidential  inquiries  into  the  antecedents  of  the  appli- 
cant. But  such  a  question  has  never  been  heard  of  as, 
"Does  he  habitually  use  family  prayers  and  private  devo- 
tions?" Insurance  offices,  so  wakeful  to  sanatory  influences, 
absolutely  ignore  prayer  as  one  of  them.  The  same  is  true 
for  insurances  of  all  descriptions,  as  those  connected  with  fire, 
ships,  lightning,  hail,  accidental  death,  and  cattle-sickness. 
How  is  it  possible  to  explain  why  Quakers,  who  are  most 
devout  and  most  shrewd  men  of  business,  have  ignored  these 
considerations,  except  on  the  ground  that  they  do  not  really 
believe  in  what  they  and  others  freely  assert  about  the  effi- 
cacy of  prayer?    It  was,  at  one  time,  considered  an  act  of 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  103 

mistrust  in  an  overruling  Providence,  to  put  lightning-con- 
ductors on  churches  ;  for  it  was  said  that  God  would  surely 
take  care  of  his  own.  But  Arago's  collection  of  the  acci- 
dents from  lightning  showed  they  were  sorely  needed ;  and 
now  lightning-conductors  are  universal.  Other  kinds  of 
accidents  befall  churches  equallj-  with  other  buildings  of  the 
same  class ;  such  as  ai-chitectural  flaws  (resulting  in  great 
expenses  for  repair) ,  fires,  earthquakes,  and  avalanches. 

The  cogency  of  all  these  arguments  is  materially  increased 
by  the  recollection  that  many  items  of  ancient  faith  have 
been  successively  abandoned  by  the  Christian  world  to  the 
domain  of  recognized  superstition.  It  is  not  two  centuries 
ago,  long  subsequent  to  the  days  of  Shakspeare  and  other 
great  names,  that  the  sovereign  of  this  countr}'  was  accus- 
tomed to  lay  hands  on  the  sick  for  their  recover^',  under  the 
sanction  of  a  regular  church  service,  which  was  not  omitted 
from  our  prayer-books  till  the  time  of  George  II.  Witches 
were  unanimously  believed  in,  and  were  regularly  exorcised, 
and  punished  by  law,  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  last  cen- 
tui-y.  Ordeals  and  duels,  most  reasonable  solutions  of 
complicated  difficulties,  according  to  the  popular  theory  of 
religion,  were  found  absolutely  fallacious  in  practice.  The 
miraculous  power  of  relics  and  images,  still  so  general  in 
Southern  Eui'ope,  is  scouted  in  England.  The  importance 
ascribed  to  dreams,  the  barely  extinct  claims  of  astrology', 
and  auguries  of  good  or  evil  luck,  and  many  other  well- 
known  products  of  superstition  which  are  found  to  exist  in 


I04  Statistical  Inquiries 

every  country,  have  ceased  to  be  believed  in  bj'  us.  This  is 
the  natural  course  of  events,  just  as  the  Waters  of  Jealousy, 
and  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim  of  the  Mosaic  law,  had 
become  obsolete  in  the  times  of  the  later  Jewish  kings. 
The  civilized  world  has  already  yielded  an  enormous  amount 
of  honest  conviction  to  the  inexorable  requirements  of 
honest  fact ;  and  it  seems  to  me  clear,  that  all  belief  in  the 
efficac}^  of  prayer,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  have  been  con- 
sidering it,  must  be  yielded  also.  The  evidence  I  have  been 
able  to  collect  bears  wholly  and  solely  in  that  direction  ;  and, 
in  the  face  of  it,  the  onus  probandi  lies  henceforth  on  the 
other  side. 

Nothing  that  I  have  said  negatives  the  fact  that  the  mind 
vaay  be  relieved  by  the  utterance  of  prayer.  The  impulse  to 
pour  out  the  feelings  in  sound  is  not  peculiar  to  man.  Any 
mother  that  has  lost  her  young,  and  wanders  about,  moan- 
ing, and  looking  piteously  for  S3'mpathy,  possesses  much  of 
that  which  prompts  men  to  pray  in  articulate  words.  There 
is  a  yearning  of  the  heart,  a  craving  for  help,  it  knows  not 
where,  certainly  from  no  source  that  it  sees.  Of  a  similar 
kind  is  the  bitter  cry  of  the  hare  when  the  greyhound  is 
almost  iipon  her :  she  abandons  hope  through  her  own  efforts, 
and  screams  —  but  to  whom  ?  It  is  a  voice  convulsively  sent 
out  into  space,  whose  utterance  is  a  physical  relief.  These 
feelings  of  distress  and  of  terror  are  simple ;  and  an  inar- 
ticulate cry  suflBces  to  give  vent  to  them.  But  the  reason 
why  man   is   not    satisfied    by   uttering    inarticulate    cries 


into  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  105 

(though  sometimes  they  are  felt  to  be  the  most  appropriate) 
is  owing  to  his  superior  intellectual  powers.  His  memory 
travels  back  thi-ough  interlacing  paths,  and  dwells  on  various 
connected  incidents :  his  emotions  are  complex ;  and  he 
prays  at  length. 

Neither  does  any  thing  I  have  said  profess  to  throw  light 
on  the  question  of  how  far  it  is  possible  for  man  to  com- 
mune in  his  heart  with  God.  We  know  that  many  persons 
of  high  intellectual  gifts  and  critical  minds  look  upon  it  as 
an  axiomatic  certainty  that  they  possess  this  power,  although 
it  is  impossible  for  them  to  establish  any  satisfactory  crite- 
rion to  distinguish  between  what  may  really  be  borne  in 
upon  them  from  without,  and  what  arises  from  within,  but 
which,  through  a  sham  of  the  imagination,  appears  to  be 
external.  A  confident  sense  of  communion  with  God  must 
necessarily  rejoice  and  strengthen  the  heart,  and  divert  it 
from  petty  cares ;  and  it  is  equally  certain  that  similar 
benefits  are  not  excluded  from  those,  who,  on  conscientious 
grounds,  are  sceptical  as  to  the  reality  of  a  power  of  com- 
munion. These  can  dwell  on  the  undoubted  fact  that  there 
exists  a  solidarity  between  themselves  and  what  surrounds 
them,  through  the  endless  re-actions  of  physical  laws,  among 
which  the  hereditary  influences  are  to  be  included.  They 
know  that  they  are  descended  from  an  endless  past,  that 
they  have  a  brotherhood  with  all  that  is,  and  have  each 
his  own  share  of  responsibility  in  the  parentage  of  an  end- 
less future.     The  effort  to  familiarize  the  imasination  with 


lo6         Statistical  Inquiries  into  Prayer. 

this  great  idea  has  much  in  common  with  the  effort  of  com- 
muning with  a  God  ;  and  its  re-action  on  the  mind  of  the 
thinker  is,  in  man}-  important  respects,  the  same.  It  ma}' 
not  equally  rejoice  the  heart ;  but  it  is  quite  as  powerful  in 
ennobling  the  resolves ;  and  it  is  found  to  give  serenit}* 
during  the  trials  of  life,  and  in  the  shadow  of  approaching 
death.  Francis  Galton. 


ON  PEAYEE. 

y 

1.— BY  PROFESSOR  TYNDALI.. 

2.  — BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF   "HINTS  TOWARDS  A  SERIOUS 

ATTEMPT    TO    ESTIMATE    THE    VALUE     OF    THE 
'PRAYER  FOR  THE   SICK.'" 

3.  — BY  JAMES  McCOSH,  D.D.,  PRESIDENT  OF  PRINCETON 

COLLEGE,   UNITED  STATES. 


These  three  papers  appeared  in  this  order  in  "  The  Contemporary 
Review,"  October,  1872.  In  the  first,  Mr.  Tyndall  suggests  his  own 
views,  whicli  were  not  set  forth  in  his  brief  Introductory  Note  to  the 
original  "Hints,"  &c.,  tliougli  his  views  niiglit  be  inferred.  The 
author  of  "  The  Hints,"  in  this  second  paper,  replies  to  Dr.  Little- 
dale,  and  re-enforces  tlie  argument  of  his  original  communication. 
Dr.  McCosh's  paper  was  intended  as  an  answer  to  tiie  original  com- 
munications of  Mr.  Tyndall  and  liis  friend,  and  did  not  liave  refer- 
ence to  tlieir  replies,  published  in  the  same  number  of  the  review 
which  contained  Dr.  McCosh's  Defence  of  Prayer. 


V. 

ON  PRAYER. 

1. 

rpHE  editor  of  "The  Contemporary  Review"  is  liberal 
enough  to  grant  me  space  for  a  few  brief  reflections  on 
a  subject,  a  former  reference  to  which,  in  these  pages,  has,  I 
believe,  brought  down  upon  me  a  considerable  amount  of 
animadversion. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  some,  if  I  glance  at  a  few  cases 
illustrative  of  the  history  of  the  human  mind  in  relation  to 
this  and  kindred  subjects.  In  the  fourth  centur}',  the  belief 
in  antipodes  was  deemed  unscriptural  and  heretical.  The 
pious  Lactantius  was  as  angry  with  the  people  who  held  this 
notion  as  my  censors  are  with  me,  and  quite  as  unsparing  in 
his  denunciations  of  their  "  monstrosities."  Lactantius 
was  irritated,  because,  in  his  mind,  by  education  and  habit, 
cosmogony  and  religion  were  indissolubly  associated,  and 
therefore  simultaneously  disturbed.  In  the  early  part  of 
the  seventeenth  centur^^,  the  notion  that  the  earth  was  fixed, 
and  that  the  sun  and  stars  revolved  round  it   daily,  was 

109 


'/\ 


no  On  Prayer. 

interwov^en  in  a  similar  manner  with  religious  feeling ;  the 
separation  then  attempted  by  Galileo  arousing  animosit}', 
and  kindling  persecution.  Men  still  living  can  remember 
the  indignation  excited  by  the  first  revelations  of  geology, 
regarding  the  age  of  the  earth ;  the  association  between 
chronology  and  religion  being  for  the  time  indissoluble.  In 
our  day,  however,  the  best-informed  clerg^Tiien  are  prepared 
to  admit  that  our  views  of  the  universe  and  its  Author  are 
not  impau-ed,  but  improved,  by  the  abandonment  of  the 
Mosaic  account  of  the  creation.  Look,  finally',  at  the  excite- 
ment caused  by  the  publication  of  "The  Origin  of  Species," 
and  compare  it  with  the  calm  attendant  on  the  appearance 
of  the  far  more  outspoken,  and,  from  the  old  point  of  view, 
more  impious,  "  Descent  of  Man." 

Thus  religion  survives  after  the  removal  of  what  had  been 
long  considered  essential  to  it.  In  our  day  the  antipodes 
are  accepted  ;  the  fixity  of  the  earth  is  given  up  ;  the  period 
of  creation,  and  the  reputed  age  of  the  world,  are  alike  dis- 
sipated ;  evolution  is  looked  upon  without  ten'or ;  and  other 
changes  have  occurred  in  the  same  direction  too  numerous 
to  be  dwelt  upon  here.  In  fact,  from  the  earliest  times  to 
the  present,  religion  has  been  undergoing  a  process  of  purifi- 
cation, freeing  itself  slowl}'  and  painfull}^  from  the  physical 
errors  which  the  busy  and  uninformed  intellect  mingled  with 
the  aspiration  of  the  soul,  and  which  ignorance  sought  to 
perpetuate.  Some  of  us  think  a  final  act  of  purification 
remains  to  be  performed ;  while  others  oppose  this  notion 


On  Prayer.  iii 

with  the  confidence  and  the  warmth  of  ancient  times.  The 
bone  of  contention,  at  present,  is  the  physical  value  of  ' 
prayer.  It  is  not  my  wish  to  excite  surprise,  much  less  to 
draw  forth  protest,  by  the  employment  of  this  phrase.  I 
would  simpl}'-  ask  an}^  intelligent  person  to  look  the  problem 
honestl}'  and  steadil}^  in  the  face,  and  then  to  say  whether, 
in  the  estimation  of  the  great  body  of  those  who  sincerely 
resort  to  it,  prayer  does  not,  at  all  events  upon '  special 
occasions,  invoke  a  Power  which  checks  and  augments  the 
descent  of  rain,  which  changes  the  force  and  direction  of 
winds,  which  affects  the  growth  of  corn,  and  the  health  of 
men  and  cattle,  —  a  Power,  in  short,  which,  when  appealed 
to  under  pressing  circumstances,  produces  the  precise  effects  ' 
caused  by  physical  energy  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things. 
To  any  person  who  deals  sincerely  with  the  subject,  and 
refuses  to  blur  his  moral  vision  by  intellectual  subtleties, 
this,  I  think,  will  appear  a  true  statement  of  the  case. 

It  is  under  this  aspect  alone  that  the  scientific  student,  so  ' 
far  as  I  represent  him,  has  an}^  wish  to  meddle  with  prayer, 
forced  upon  his  attention  as  a  form  of  physical  energy,  ' 
or  as  the  equivalent  of  such  energ}^,  he  claims  the  right  of 
subjecting  it  to  those  methods  of  examination  from  which 
all  our  present  knowledge  of  the  physical  universe  is  derived. 
And  if  his  researches  lead  him  to  a  conclusion  adverse  to  its 
claims  ;  if  his  inquiries  rivet  him  still  closer  to  the  philosophy 
infolded  in  the  words,  "  He  maketh  his  sun  to  shine  on  the 
evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  upon  the  just  and 


112  On  Prayer. 

upon  the  unjust,"  —  he  contends  only  for  the  displacement 
of  prayer,  not  for  its  extinction.  He  simply  says,  physical 
nature  is  not  its  legitimate  domain. 

This  conclusion,  moreover,  must  be  based  on  pure  physi- 
cal evidence,  and  not  on  any  inherent  unreasonableness  in 
the  act  of  pra3'er.  The  theor^^  that  the  system  of  nature  is 
under  the  control  of  a  Being  who  changes  phenomena  in 
compliance  with  the  prayers  of  men,  is,  in  m^^  opinion,  a  per- 
fectly legitimate  one.  It  ma}',  of  course,  be  I'cndered  futile 
by  being  associated  with  conceptions  which  contradict  it ;  but 
such  conceptions  form  no  necessary  part  of  the  theory.  It 
is  a  matter  of  experience  that  an  earthly  father,  who  is  at  ' 
the  same  time  both  wise  and  tender,  listens  to  the  requests 
of  his  children,  and,  if  they  do  not  ask  amiss,  takes  pleasure 
in  granting  their  requests.  We  know,  also,  that  this  com- 
pliance extends  to  the  alteration,  within  certain  limits,  of 
the  current  of  events  on  earth.  With  this  suggestion  offered 
by  our  experience,  it  is  no  departure  from  scientific  method  ' 
to  place  behind  natural  phenomena  a  universal  Father,  who, 
in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  his  children,  alters  the  currents 
of  those  phenomena.  Thus  far,  theology  and  science  go  ^^ 
hand  in  hand.  The  conception  of  an  ether,  for  example, 
trembling  with  the  waves  of  light,  is  suggested  by  the 
ordinary  phenomena  of  wave-motion  in  water  and  in  air ; 
and,  in  like  manner,  the  conception  of  personal  volition  in 
nature  is  suggested  by  the  ordinary  action  of  man  upon 
earth.     I  therefore  urge  no  impossibilities,  though  you  con- 


On  Prayer.  113 

stantly  charge  me  with  doing  so.  I  do  not  even  urge  incon- 
sistency, but,  on  the  contrary,  frankly  admit  tliat  you  have 
as  good  a  right  to  place  your  conception  at  the  root  of 
phenomena  as  I  have  to  place  mine. 

But,  without  verification ^  a  theoretic  conception  is  a  mere 
figment  of  the  intellect ;  and  I  am  sorry  to  find  us  parting 
compan3"  at  this  point.  The  region  of  theory,  both  in  sci- 
ence and  theology,  lies  behind  the  world  of  the  senses  ;  but 
the  verification  of  theory  occurs  in  the  sensible  world.  To 
check  the  theory,  we  have  simply  to  compare  the  deductions 
from  it  with  the  facts  of  observation.  If  the  deductions  be 
in  accordance  with  the  facts,  we  accept  the  theory  :  if  in 
opposition,  the  theory  is  given  up.  A  single  experiment  is 
frequently  devised  by  which  the  theory  must  stand  or  fall. 
Of  this  character  was  the  determination  of  the  velocity  of 
light  in  liquids  as  a  crucial  test  of  the  Emission  Theory. 
According  to  Newton,  light  travelled  faster  in  water  than  in 
air :  according  to  an  experiment  suggested  by  Arago,  and 
executed  by  Fizeau  and  Foucault,  it  travelled  faster  in  air 
than  in  water.  The  experiment  was  conclusive  against 
Newton's  theory. 

But,  while  science  cheerfully  submits  to  this  ordeal,  it 
seems  impossible  to  devise  a  mode  of  verification  of  their  < 
theory  which  does  not  arouse  resentment  in  theological 
minds.  Is  it,  that,  while  the  pleasure  of  the  scientific  man 
culminates  in  the  demonstrated  harmou}'  between  theory  and 
fact,  the  highest  pleasiure  of  the  religious  man  has  been 
8 


114  ^^  Prayer. 

already  tasted  in  the  very  act  of  praying,  prior  to  verifica- 
tion ;  any  further  effort  in  this  direction  being  a  mere  dis- 
turbance of  his  peace?  Or  is  it  that  we  have  before  us  a 
residue  of  that  mj'sticism  of  the  middle  ages  which  has  been 
so  admirabl}'  described  by  Whewell,  —  that  "practice  of 
referring  things  and  events,  not  to  clear  and  distinct  notions, 
not  to  general  rules  capable  of  direct  verification,  but  to 
notions  vague,  distant,  and  vast,  which  we  cannot  bring  into 
contact  with  facts,  as  when  we  connect  natiu'al  events  with 
moral  and  historic  causes  "  ?  "Thus,"  he  continues,  "the 
character  of  mysticism  is,  that  it  refers  particulars,  not  to 
generalizations  homogeneous  and  immediate,  but  to  such  as 
are  heterogeneous  and  remote  ; "  to  which  we  must  add,  that 
the  process  of  this  reference  is  not  a  calm  act  of  the  intel- 
lect, but  is  accompanied  with  a  glow  of  enthusiastic  feeling. 

Every  feature  here  depicted,  and  some  more  questionable 
ones,  have  shown  themselves  of  late  most  conspicuousl}",  I 
regret  to  say,  in  the  "leaders"  of  a  weekly  journal  of  con- 
siderable influence,  and  one  on  many  grounds  entitled  to 
the  respect  of  thoughtful  men.  In  the  correspondence, 
however,  published  b}'  the  same  journal,  are  to  be  found 
two  or  three  letters  well  calculated  to  correct  the  temporary- 
flightiness  of  the  journal  itself. 

It  is  not  my  habit  of  mind  to  think  otherwise  than  sol- 
emnly of  the  feeling  which  prompts  pra3'er.  It  is  a  potency 
which  I  should  like  to  see  guided,  not  extinguished,  devoted 
to  practicable  objects,  instead  of  wasted  upon  air.     In  some 


On  Prayer.  115 

form  or  other,  not  yet  evident,  it  may,  as  alleged,  be  neces- 
sary to  man's  highest  culture.  Certain  it  is,  that,  while  I 
rank  many  persons  who  emplo}'  it  low  in  the  scale  of  being,  — 
natural  foolishness,  bigotry,  and  intolerance  being,  in  their 
case,  intensified  b}-  the  notion  that  they  have  access  to  the 
ear  of  God,  —  I  regard  others  who  employ  it  as  forming  part 
of  the  ver}'  cream  of  the  earth.  The  faith  that  simply  adds 
to  the  folly  and  ferocit}-  of  the  one  is  turned  to  enduring 
sweetness,  holiness,  abounding  charity,  and  self-sacrifice  bjM 
the  other.  Christianity^  in  fact,  3'aries  with_the_nature  upon 
which  it  falls.  Often  imreasonable,  if  not  contemptible,  in 
its  purer  forms  prayer  hints  at  disciplines  which  few  of  us 
can  neglect  without  moral  loss.  But  no  good  can  come  of 
giving  it  a  delusive  value,  b}'  claiming  for  it  a  power  in  phys-  ' 
ical  nature.  It  may  strengthen  the  heart  to  meet  life's 
losses,  and  thus  indirectl}-  promote  phj'sical  well-being,  as 
the  digging  of  -^sop's  orchard  brought  a  treasure  of  fertility 
greater  than  the  treasure  sought.  Such  indirect  issues  we 
all  admit ;  but  it  would  be  simply  dishonest  to  affirm  that  it 
is  such  issues  that  are  alwa3's  in  view.  Here,  for  the  pres- 
ent, I  must  end.  I  ask  no  space  to  reply  to  those  railers  who 
make  such  free  use  of  the  terms  "insolence,"  "outrage," 
"  profanit}-,"  and  "  blasphemy-. "  They  obviously  lack 
the  sobriety  of  mind  necessar}-  to  give  accuracy  to  their 
statements,  or  to  render  then-  charges  worthy  of  serious 
refutation.  John  Tyndall. 


ii6  On  Prayer. 

2. 

In  a  paper  published  in  "  The  Contemporary  Review  "  of 
July  last,  I  made  a  proposal  to  ascertain,  by  a  practical 
test,  the  value  of  prayer  on  behalf  of  the  sick.  It  was  my 
aim  to  invite  the  attention  of  all  thoughtful  persons  ;  but  I 
desired  co-operation  especially  from  those  who  have  a  firm 
belief  in  the  value  of  such  prater.  Strange  to  say,  none  of 
the  latter  have  responded  in  a  favorable  sense.  Indeed,  by 
many  m}'  proposal  has  been  called  "  profane,"  "  irreli- 
gious," and  by  other  similar  epithets  ;  while,  in  the  numerous 
articles  which  have  appeared  on  the  subject,  I  myself  have 
been  termed  "materialist"  and  "infidel,"  whatever  those 
appellations  may  signify.  Nevertheless,  I  have  often  ob- 
served invitations  to  united  prayer  issued  for  various  objects 
to  the  "religious  world," — such  as  for  the  prosperity  of 
Sunday  schools,  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  or  of  foreign 
peoples  to  Christianity,  —  and  that  the  invitations  have  been 
largely  and  devoutly  complied  with.  In  the  last-named 
instance,  I  have  read  glowing  descriptions  of  the  obvious 
answers  that  have  been  vouchsafed  to  such  prayer  ;  and  I 
have  even  seen  numerical  estimates  of  the  conversions  which 
have  thus  been  effected.  Yet,  and  with  equal  solemnit}^,  I 
have  said  to  the  religious  world,  "Let  us  praj-;"  and  the 
religious  world  has  declined  the  exercise.  This  strikes  me  as 
a  remarkable  circumstance ;  and  I  propose  to  inquire  why 
it  has  occurred ;   for  the   object  of  prayer  —  the   recovery 


Or  Prayer.  1 1 7 

of  the  sick  —  is,  as  I  have  formerl}-  shown,  universally 
admitted  b}'  the  Christian  Church  to  be  a  legitimate  one. 
And  the  ultimate  aim  of  ni}'  proposal  was,  that  the  value  of 
praj-er  might  be  not  onlj-  estimated,  but  also  utilized,  to  a 
larger  extent  than  heretofore,  on  behalf,  at  an}-  rate,  of  our 
great  charitable  institutions.  What  was  there  in  this  to 
warrant  the  opposition,  the  abuse,  the  attempt  to  affix 
the  odium  theologicum,  which  the  proposal  encounters? 
"VYhy,  indeed,  was  my  suggestion  not  regarded  with  favor 
by  professedly  religious  people,  and  embraced  with  that 
activity  and  fervor  which  would  certainl}^  have  been  mani- 
fested b}'  man}-,  had  I  proposed  special  services  for  the 
conversion  of  the  "  heathen,"  instead  of  for  the  recovery  of 
the  sick?     I  propose,  at  the  outset,  to  pursue  this  inquir3\ 

Some  things  seem  to  have  been  wholly-  lost  sight  of,  or  not 
understood,  by  m}^  opponents.  Among  these,  I  must  include 
the  Rev.  R.  F.  Littledale,  whose  paper  on  "  The  Rationale 
of  Prajer  "  appeared  in  the  August  number,  so  far  as  he 
criticises  m}'  proposal,  although  the  article  mainly-  applies 
to  Prof.  Tyndall. 

Now,  at  the  outset,  that  which  strikes  me  most  forcibly', 
and,  I  must  confess,  which  painfull}'  shocks  me,  is  the 
extreme  ignorance  of  what  is  comprehended  by  the  exercise, 
—  prayer,  —  and  the  really  irreligious  state  of  heart,  if  I  ma}- 
borrow  what  is  almost  a  theological  metaphor,  manifested  by 
my  critics,  especially  those  who  write  from  the  soi-disant 
"religious"    side   of  the  question.     For  example,  while  I 


1 1 8  0)1  Prayer. 

specifically  designed  an  inquiiy  to  ascertain  the  value  of 
"pra3'erfor  the  sick,"  and  b}-  means  of  this  the  value  of 
direct  petition  for  material  benefits  of  an}-  kind, 'as  classified 
b}-  me,  I  am  charged  with  den3ing  directl}',  or  by  implication, 
the  value  of  prayer  altogether  ?  It  scarcely  seems  to  enter 
into  the  schemes  of  my  opponents,  that  to  some  minds, 
especiall}'  may  I  saj-  to  the  minds  of  the  much  abused  physi- 
cist, the  larger  and  more  important  part  of  prayer  is  that 
Avhich  is  in  no  sense  of  the  words  a  petitioning  for  benefits. 
Dr.  Littledale,  in  replying  to  Prof.  Tyndall's  obvious  allu- 
sion to  this  larger  sense  (in  a  passage  quoted) ,  denies  that 
it  has  that  meaning,  and  terms  the  secondary  or  reflected 
benefit  arising  to  the  mind  from  prayer  for  good,  to  which  he 
limits  it,  "  an  immoral  sham  ;  "  "  is  at  a  loss  to  guess  what 
kind  of  a  God  he  "  [the  professor]  "  is  willing  to  pray  to,  or 
what  kind  of  blessings  he  is  prepared  to  pray  for."  Mark, 
—  "  blessings  to  pray  for,"  —  always  petition,  and,  bej'ond 
petition,  nothing !  Prof.  Tyndall  can  well  take  care  of  him- 
self ;-  and  I  shall  interfere  in  no  part  of  the  question  between 
himself  and  Dr.  Littledale,  except  so  far  as  it  concerns 
views  which  I  myself  hold.  Besides,  I  have  not  the  least 
means  of  knowing  what  the  belief  of  Prof.  Tj-ndall  may  be, 
except  through  his  writings,  having  but  once  spoken  to  him 
on  the  subject  of  ni}-  former  paper,  and  having  had  no  sort 
of  communication  with  him  of  any  kind  since.  I  am  com- 
pelled to  say  this,  lest  he  may  be  held  answerable  for  any 
opinion  of  mine,  except  so  far  as  his  note  of  July  last  indi- 


On  Prayer.  119 

cated.  If  prayer  be  nothing  more  than  asking  a  Deit}'  to 
confer,  as  gifts,  many  things  which  to  onr  little  vision  and 
narroT^'  circles  of  observing  appear  desirable,  then  I  for 
one,  in  common  with  man}' other  "  phj'sicists,"  have  long 
labored  under  a  delusion  ;  and  one  of  the  nobler  effects  of 
prayer,  I  learn  from  the  lips  of  a  divine  to  be  little  better 
than  "a  fit  of  voluntary  hysterics," — a  condition,  let 
me  observe,  twice  applied  to  his  opponents  in  the  course 
of  one  article,  I  think  I  may  fairly  say  with  as  little  of 
real  meaning  as  of  good  taste.  However,  I  am  willing  to 
believe  he  is  unacquainted  with  the  malady. 

I  can  understand  how,  in  this  practical  and  material  age 
as  it  has  become  the  fashion  to  call  it,  the  great  bulk  of  ^ 
mankind  has  come  to  associate  the  idea  of  acquiring  good, 
and  that  idea  only,  with  the  exercise  of  prayer.  To  ask 
that  God  ma}'  protect  us  in  danger ;  that  a  carriage  may  con- 
ve}^  us  safely  ;  that  a  medicine  ma}'  be  blessed^,  and  so  help 
us  to  get  to  our  business  again  ;  that  the  rain  maj'  fall  in  the 
fields  about  us,  when  the  crops  are  taking  hai-m  for  want  of 
water,  —  is  the  natural  outcome  of  a  man  whose  gi-eat  aim 
in  life  (no  doubt  a  legitimate  aim)  is  to  better  himself.  And 
it  is  very,  ver}'  much  in  accord  with  the  needs  of  an  increas- 
ing population,  when  that  aim  becomes,  perhaps,  more  diffi- 
cult than  ever  of  attainment.  It  is  deemed  nobler  to  ask 
for  a  clearer  intellect,  for  greater  self-control,  and  a  mastery 
over  passions  ;  a  not  less  material  good  each  one,  after  all, 
and  not  less  valuable  in  pursuing  the  aim  described ;  compu- 


1 20  On  Prayer. 

table,  therefore,  as  pecuniary  values,  equally  with  the  pre- 
ceding goods,  if  need  be,  but  by  a  more  complex  process. 
All  such  prayer  springs  from  the  instinct  of  self-i^reservation, 
of  selfishness  if  you  please.  But,  if  this  be  the  common 
faith,  the  common  people  have  not  been  left  to  arrive  at  it  b}' 
that  road  alone.  Their  religious  teachers  have  through  all 
time  inculcated  the  self-seeking  petition  as  a  duty,  and  have 
called  it  "  pra3er."  Perhaps  no  religious  office  has  been 
more  extolled,  or  more  regarded  as  essential  to  religious 
life.  And  their  teachers,  especially  those  of  the  ancient 
cliurch,  have  derived  large  revenues  from  its  exercise  by 
wa3'  of  petition,  especially  for  the  preservation  from  suffer- 
ing in  a  future  state,  of  individuals  who  have  been  able  to 
pay  largely  for  the  influence  so  exercised  with  the  Deit}'.  I 
observe  that  Dr.  Littledale  is  evidently  favorable  to  the  exer- 
cise of  this  function. 

But,  since  prayer  has  thus  been  so  largely  regarded  and 
utilized  as  a  means  of  augmenting  wealth  and  comfort,  I 
and  others  can  scarcely  be  deemed  irreligious,  because, 
although  ver}'  willing  to  accept  these  goods,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  doubt  the  value  of  the  means  emplo3'ed  for  obtain- 
ing them.  Moreover,  it  is  greatl}'  disappointing  at  first,  to 
the  matured  man,  to  be  thus  forced  to  question  it,  having 
believed  it  implicitly  b}^  force  of  education  Avhen  a  youth. 
Indeed,  the  sincere,  honest  doubt  can  scarcelyjTisej_except  ifi  .- 
a  devout  mind,  —  in  a  mind  earnestly  desirous  to  find  t^^e  . 
truth,  and  to  accept  it,  however  painful  it  may  at  first  sight 


On  Prayer.  121 

api>ear.  The  cessation  to  believe  in  the  value  of  petition 
to  the  Most  High  is,  at  all  events,  an  acknowledgment  of  a 
power  lost,  —  a  thing  which  all  men  part  with  reluctantly. 
The  merely  indifferent  man,  caring  for  none  of  these  ques- 
tions, will,  if  he  think  at  all,  exei'cise  a  worldly  common- 
sense,  and  sa}',  "All  the  world  pram's:  what  all  the  world 
has  done  must  be  right.  If  there  be  any  value  in  prayer 
(petition),  why  should  I  deprive  mj'self  of  it?"  And, 
behol^  he  prajeth  !  —  after  his  fashion.  Now,  "all  the 
world  prays,"  in  that  man's  mouth,  is  as  good  reasoning 
as  Dr.  Littledale's,  when  he  argues  for  the  A^alue  of  praj-er 
from  its  universalit}".  I  shall  presently'  consider  the  ques- 
tion of  its  practice  throughout  the  world,  and  of  the  efficacy 
of  prayer  by  way  of  petition,  but  will  first  endeavor  to  show 
what  prayer  maybe^ax3cording.lQ_J.he- views  of  a  pliysicist, 
and  which,  in  all  the  criticisms  I  have  read,  never  seems 
to  be  so  much  as  dreamed  of.  Hence  my  painful  sense 
of  the  want  of  real  religious  feeling  outside  the  circle  said 
to  be  so  exclusive,  and  incapable  of  any  lofty  conceptions, 
or  of  an}'  aims,  indeed,  bej'ond  purely  scientific  investiga- 
tion. 

I  am  a  physiologist,  saj-,  belonging  to  a  section  of  the 
"narrow"  physicists,  or  a  geologist.  I  am  engaged  in  a 
search  after  the  manner  or  nature  of  work  exercised  by  some 
great  Power  infinitely  beyond  me.  What  wonder  and  admi- 
ration overwhelm  me  as  I  trace  the  operation  of  a  Supreme 
Intelligence !     I   may  or   may   not   anthropomorphize    that 


122  On  Prayer. 

Power,  and  call  "Him"  "Creator,"  "Deity,"  "Father," 
what  3'ou  will,  —  terms  all  equall}'  good,  but  alike  inadequate 
to  imply  the  object  or  source  of  that  inexpressible  sense  of 
admiration  which  fills  me  ;  each  term  feeble  enough,  and  but 
slightly  differing  one  from  the  other,  in  presence  of  the  All 
Supreme,  and  in  the  act  of  tracing  the  symbols  of  originating 
Mind  in  the  happily  untranslatable  text  which  occupies  the 
patient  and  humble  seeker  after  fact ;  an  original,  revealing 
beauty  be3-ond  imagining,  power,  resource,  and  order  of  the 
gTandest  kind  ;  an  unerring  order,  which  in  our  experience 
knows  no  exception,  is  all-sufficient,  and  furnishes  to  us,  its 
children,  the  highest  t3'pe  and  model  of  perfect  organization. 
Do  I  quail  before  the  inexorable  decree,  the  "  necessity  " 
of  that  order,  if  3-ou  please  ?  Or  may  I  not,  rather,  rejoice 
in  it,  confide,  Jiope,  trust  in  it,  know  that  my  own  place  is 
a  part  of  the  grand  whole,  and  do  mj-  work  unquestioningl}^ 
and  unsuggestingl3- ?  There  is  no  influence  so  soothing, 
none  so  reconciling  to  the  checkered  conditions  of  life,  as 
consciousness  of  the  absolute  stability  of  the  Rock  on  which 
the  phjsicist  takes  his  stand,  who,  knowing  the  intelligent 
order  that  pervades  the  universe,  believes  in  it,  and,  with 
true  filial  piety,  would  never  suggest  a  petition  for  a  change 
in  the  Great  Will  as  touching  any  childish  whim  of  his  own. 
I  cannot  express  my  repugnance  at  the  notion  that  supreme 
Intelligence  and  Wisdom  can  be  influenced  by  the  sugges- 
tion of  anj-  human  mind,  however  great. 

It  is  thus  that  we  may  breathe  the  true  spirit  of  commun- 


On  Prayer.  123 

ion  with  the  Unseen,  here  realize  a  sense  of  dependence 
upon  that  which  is  too  great  to  be  moved,  and  gladly  cherish 
submission  to  the  onl}-  Mastership  found  to  be  unchanging 
and  sufficing.  Here  the  physicist  fears  no  catastrophe, 
regards  calmh*  all  that  happens,  whatever  it  may  be,  as  the 
outcome  of  the  forces  that  exist.  His  work,  and  the  work  of 
all  men,  the  onh'  work  that  satisfies  and  endures,  is  the  find- 
ing and  maintaining  of  truth,  so  far  as  he  knows  it,  freely, 
giving  equal  license  to  every  other  man  to  do  the  same  ; 
comparing,  as  we  do  at  this  moment,  our  observations  and 
experience,  and,  in  the  clash  of  thought,  evoking  truth, 
victor}'  for  whichever  side  matters  not  to  him,  since  it  surely 
will  in  the  end  be  for  the  side  of  truth.  For  the  future,  he 
has  no  anxiety  :  the  supreme  Order  in  which  he  has  a  place 
and  work  cannot  fail  to  provide  ;  and  he  submits,  without 
suggesting  limits  or  a  definition  to  the  plan  he  never  could 
have  devised,  and  cannot  compass,  too  glad  to  believe  that 
all  such  Order  is  not  to  be  influenced  by  human  interference. 
Such  a  spirit  enters  into  a  man's  life,  is  part  of  it,  needs 
no  special  seasons  or  excitement  to  evoke  it :  it  is  in  him, 
burning  spontaneously,  and  is  not  added  from  without  by 
any  "  means  of  grace."  Such  is  the  devotion  of  the  physi- 
cist ;  and  the  work  of  such  a  life  is  a  perpetual  prajer,  an 
identification  and  communion  of  the  worker  with  the  spring 
of  all  force  and  power.  Doubtless  Luther  felt  this  when  he 
uttered  his  famous  "  laborasse  est  orasse."  It  ma}'  or  may 
not  be  the  spirit  of  Christianity  according  to  the  Church  ;  but 


124  On  Prayer. 

it  is  founded  in  truth.  Is  it  not  the  realization  and  final 
consummation  of  all  prayer,  even  of  all  petition,  —  last 
arrived  at  in  man's  course,  —  culmination  of  all  matured 
piety  expressed  in  the  memorable  ejaculation,  "  Thy  will  be 
done ' ' ? 

But  I  am  told  that  the  profanit}'  of  my  proposal  consists 
in  its  object,  inasmuch  as  this  was  not  the  recovery  of  the 
sick,  but  an  endeavor  to  estimate  by  figures  —  that  is,  scien- 
tifically; that  is,  trul}',  nothing  more  —  the  value  of  peti- 
tion on  their  behalf.  And  I  am  gravely  told  that  the  Most 
High  would  never  answer  prayer  with  such  an  end  in  view. 

Oh,  little  estimate  of  the  Supreme  !  My  mind  revolts 
against  the  tiny  finite  who  thus  seeks  to  measure  by  its  own 
frail  and  irritable  temper  the  quality  of  the  Infinite.  Are 
his  thoughts  as  our  thoughts,  or  his  ways  as  our  ways? 
Shall  prayer,  which  at  least  is  unselfish,  and  aims  only  at  / 
attaining  truth,  be  so  hardly  dealt  with  on  high?  Has  it  not 
an  aim  as  noble  as  the  prayer  that  an  army  may  be  success- 
ful in  killing,  or  that  our  people  may  amass  greater  wealth? 
Far  be  it  from  me  to  prescribe  a  limit  to  Almighty  Will  and 
Power  and  Goodness,  to  presume  to  assert  how  human 
motives  are  weighed  by  Supreme  Wisdom  !  I  could  judge, 
no  doubt,  as  to  the  result,  were  a  narrow  human  mind  to  rule 
the  universe,  if  such  an  intolerable  idea  be  not  too  shocking. 
I  do  not  think  a  great  benevolent  human  ruler,  a  more  than 
father  to  his  creatures,  would  refuse  to  show  what  power  his 
children  might   obtain   by  asking,  supposing   that  he  had 


On  Prayer.  125 

repeatedly  exhorted  them  to  ask,  and  had  promised  to  give 
liberally  to  all.  In  making  such  a  supposition,  I  do  but 
follow  my  opponents'  cue,  and  have  no  intention  of  lower- 
ing my  ideal  of  a  Supreme  Power  to  any  likeness  of  any 
thing  in  earth  or  sky.  Only,  on  their  own  showing,  I  con- 
tend that  ni}'  critics  are  not  warranted  in  denying  that  a 
good  Deity  would  probabl}^  regard  with  favor  my  request.  I 
quite  understand,  that,  with  the  mental  and  moral  constitu- 
tion often  attributed  to  Deity,  some  sense  of  affront  to  his 
personal  dignity  might  perhaps  be  imagined  by  some  men 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  divine  compliance.  That  is  evi- 
dentl}'^  the  notion  intended.  Is  it  more  ridiculous,  or  is  it 
more  painful,  to  learn  that  to  such  a  miserable  and  primitive 
type  the  idea  of  God  has  descended,  and  that  in  a  nation 
which  vaunts  itself  not  ' '  heathen  ' '  ? 

The  question  comes  home  to  me  very  forcibly,  more  so 
than  it  ever  did  before.  Do  these  people  believe  in  the 
efficacy  of  petition?  Does  the  religious  world  really  believe 
that  the  Sundaj-  services  affect  the  health,  the  wealth,  the 
wisdom,  of  the  prayed-for,  diminish  the  deaths,  increase 
the  products  of  the  field,  preserve  from  accidents,  &c.  ? 
Do  the}^  think,  that,  without  such  prayers,  there  would  be 
more  deaths  and  smaller  crops  ?  It  either  is  or  is  not  so  ; 
and  no  discussion  about  direct  and  indirect  influence  will 
avail  one  jot  to  obscure  the  question.  Is  the  world  to  go  on 
forever  with  such  a  problem  unsolved?  Will  men  be  much 
longer  content  to  be  uncertain  how  far  all  the  phenomena  of 


126  On  Prayer. 

life  and  its  surroundings  are  obedient  to  perfect  order,  and 
are  regulated  by  supreme  wisdom,  or  how  far  the}-  are  influ- 
enced by  the  infinitely  small  and  ignorant? 

I  know  it  will  be  retorted  that  Divine  Wisdom  selects  the 
petitions,  and  answers  only  such  as  are  wise  and  good  ;  that 
is,  such  as  are  in  perfect  accord  with  itself,  so  that  none 
need  fear  any  undue  meddling  with  the  universal  order. 
Why,  then,  petition?  If  all  is  to  be  left  to  Infinite  Wisdom, 
after  all,  why  make  certainly  ignorant,  perhaps  impertinent, 
suggestions?  And  who  are  they,  even  with  "the  gift  of 
prayer  "  who  shall  ask  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  divine 
thought  ? 

But  suppose  some  wise,  what  is  the  highest  wisdom 
attainable  here  in  relation  to  that  which  rules  the  mighty 
scheme  ?  To  a  physicist,  less  than  nothing  and  vanity.  He 
who  most  studies,  most  endeavors  to  search,  who,  laboring 
ever  on  the  verge  of  the  unknown,  meekl}-,  patiently,  ear- 
nestly tries  to  press  forward  the  slowh'  advancing  realm  of 
the  known  into  the  infinity  of  the  dark  unknown,  will  be 
the  most  road}'  to  confess  his  ignorance,  and  will  never  pre- 
sume to  carry  it,  in  the  form  of  an}-  petition  for  interference, 
into  the  court  of  the  Most  High.  He  knows  but  one  desire, 
the  prayer  for  "more  light;"  but  he  knows,  too,  that  he 
must  achieve  his  end  by  untiring  labor ;  and  that  no  light 
ever  entered  this  world,  within  human  experience,  except 
in  reward  to  much  labor.  And  so,  again,  "  laborare  est 
or are." 


On  Prayer.  127 

Thus  much  for  two  of  the  chief  grounds  for  non-corapli- 
auce  on  the  part  of  the  religious  world  with  m}'  proposal,  — 
their  inadequate  conceptions  respecting  prayer  itself,  and, 
secondlj',  their  views  of  what  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
might  be  the  relations  of  a  great,  wise,  and  good  Deity  with 
his  creatures. 

I  now  desire  briefl}'  to  show  why  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  events  are  affected  by  petition  to  a  Supreme  Power ;  such 
as,  for  example,  the  recover}-  of  the  sick,  the  improvement 
of  the  weather,  the  health  and  wealth  of  particular  persons, 
the  preservation  from  murder  and  sudden  death,  &c.  I  umy 
confess  that  my  own  ver}'  grave  doubts  on  this  question  im- 
pelled me  to  propose  a  test.  Dr.  Littledale,  in  referring  to 
the  test,  makes  the  following  remark,  with  which  I  entirely 
agree,  and  which  might  have  formed  a  motto  (had  it  then 
been  written)  for  ray  former  paper  ;  and  how  it  is  applicable 
to  me  in  an^-  sense  of  admonition,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  con- 
ceive. 

"A  really  scientific  temper  would  say,  'The  fact  of  the  existence 
of  this  phenomenon '  [the  habit  of  prayer]  *  entitles  it  to  respectful 
consideration:  the  fact  that  all  inquiry  in  lower  spheres  of  knowledge 
testifies  to  the  truth  of  nonnal  sequence,  perhaps  of  law,  makes  it 
antecedently  probable  that  prayer  also  belongs  to  a  sphere  of  law,  and 
has  a  definite  purpose  in  the  economy  of  tlie  universe ;  since,  if  it 
had  no  such  purpose,  it  would  not  and  could  not  exist  at  all.  There- 
fore, instead  of  irrationally  denying  its  eflicacy,  let  us  examine  its 
practical  operation,  without  insisting  on  deductively  accommodating 
it  to  a  preconceived  hypothesis.'  " 


128  On  Prayer. 

Is  this  not  precisel}"  wliat  I  proposed  to  do? 

He  adds  another  remark  to  the  same  purpose,  which  to 
most  readers  would  seem  almost  profane  ;  and,  had  I  uttered 
it,  what  a  torrent  of  abuse  would  have  been  called  fortli,  and 
deservedly  so !  for  I  should  have  been  guilty  of  using  lan- 
guage, which,  however  just,  would  have  been  unjustifiable  in 
me,  because  it  would  do  unnecessary'  Adolence  to  the  best 
sentiments  and  the  religious  feelings  of  man^^  excellent 
people.  I  refer  to  the  following :  "  For  I  can  see  no  reason 
wh}'  prayer  as  an  actual  fact  in  the  universe  should  not  be 
investigated  as  patiently  and  exhaustively^  as  tobacco " 
Somehow,  from  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Littledale,  these 
words  excite  no  criticism. 

I  believe  that  1  may  safel}'  assume  that  all  will  agree, 
that  certain  events  within  everybody's  knowledge  have 
alwa3-s  happened  with  such  absolute  regularity",  that  no  one 
would  dream  of  petitioning  Heaven  for  any  change  in  their 
modes  of  occurrence,  —  events  the  order  of  which  has  never 
been  disturbed  during  the  historic  period.  Let  me  instance 
the  rising  and  setting  of  the  sun,  the  movements  of  the  tide, 
the  decay  and  death  of  all  organized  bodies :  many  more 
will  suggest  themselves  to  every  mind.  It  is  quite  lieside 
the  mark  to  enter  upon  an}-  metaphysical  discussion  of  the 
terms  "  law,"  "  order,"  ''  relation  of  cause  to  effect,"  and  so 
forth.  It  suffices  for  our  purpose  that  no  sane  and  moderate- 
ly intelligent  person  would  dream  of  praying  that  the  sun 
may  appear  on  the  morrow  an  hour  sooner  or  later  than  his 


On  Prayer.  129 

appointed  time,  that  the  action  of  the  tide  may  be  sus- 
pended or  reversed,  or  that  decay  and  consequent  death 
may  not  take  place  in  any  given  case.  Peoplej^^a^-j^- 
prolongation  of  life,  orj)ostponement  ofjdeath  ;  but  no  one 
thinks  of  asking  that  the  event  may  never  arrive.  Why  is 
this?  And  why  does  the  practice  of  not  praying  for  such 
things  obtain  among  those  who  believe  in  the  efficacy  of 
petition  for,  let  us  call  them,  smaller  matters?  Simply  be- 
cause the  person  praying  has  an  absolute  conviction  that  the 
events  in  question  are  so  fixed,  unaltering,  and  unalterable, 
that  they  are  bcA'ond  the  scope  of  praj'er.  So  we  see  that 
practically,  and  beyond  all  dispute,  the  phenomena  of  the 
universe  are  ranged  by  people  who  full}'  believe  in  the 
efficacy  of  petition  in  two  categories,  —  a  class,  which  I  shall 
call  number  one,  respecting  which  it  is  quite  useless,  if  not 
presumptuous,  to  pray ;  and  a  class  (number  two)  of  events 
which  are  the  legitimate  objects  of  praj-er.  Now,  it  is  curious 
to  observe  that  there  is  no  agreement  at  all  among  religious 
people  as  to  the  principles  on  which  such  classification  is  to 
be  made.  Some  persons  will  place  a  much  larger  proportion 
of  subjects  in  class  one  than  others  will,  and  vice  versa. 
Had  the  objects  which  can  be  influenced  b}'  prayer  been 
authoritatively  defined,  and  particularly'  the  objects  specified 
which  cannot  be  so  influenced,  a  useful  work  for  the  Church 
would  have  been  accomplished.  For,  without  such  guidance, 
many  people  must  (from  ignorance)  be  asking  God  for  things 
which  are  unattainable  in  this  manner  ;  while  others  are  not 


130  On  Prayer. 

asking  for  good  Avhich  might  be  so  procured.  In  first 
examining  tliis  question,  I  called  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  to  ni}-  aid  ;  and,  although  I  found  by  inference  some 
little  indication  of  an  answer  there,  it  is  by  no  means  a 
satisfactory  or  complete  one.  The  common-sense,  shall  I 
say,  of  some  people,  or  the  more  precise  iutelligence  of 
others,  leads  them  to  regard  some  objects  as  certainly  not  to 
be  attained  by  petition.  Thus,  one  of  my  opponents  says, 
"  Of  course,  it  would  be  useless  to  pray  for  recovery  in  the 
case  of  hydrophobia,"  although  he  thinks  that  less  severe 
maladies  might  be  much  modified  through  the  influence  of 
pra3'er.  I  notice  this,  because  the  idea  is  a  typical  one,  and 
embodies  the  practice  of  a  great  number  who  might  still 
hesitate  so  plainly  to  express  in  words  their  real  belief. 
The}'  summon  Almight}'  Power  when  the  requirement  is  not 
considerable  ;  but  when,  as  in  the  case  of  a  formidable  dis- 
ease above  quoted,  the  power  of  medicine  appears  to  be  nil, 
they  have  little  or  no  hope  from  an  appeal  to  Omnipotence. 

But  if  the  theory  be  true,  that  petition  to  the  Deity  is  an 
available  power  to  influence  human  events,  then  the  line  of 
demarcation  referred  to  must  absolutely  exist.  There  is  no 
escape  from  this  inference.  It  is  either  right  and  reasonable 
to  pra}'  for  an  alteration  of  the  earth's  course  round  the  sun, 
or  it  is  not.  There  must  be  a  category  of  events  not  affected 
by  prayer ;  and  there  should  be  a  category-  of  events,  if  my 
opponents  are  right,  which  can  be  so  affected.  Now,  I  con- 
tend they  are  bound  to  define  these  categories.     They  are 


On  Prayer.  131 

bound  to  say  what  may  be  prayed  for,  and  what  must  not  be 
prayed  for.  I  offered  to  aid  in  the  inquiry  by  a  practical 
tost,  —  a  test  which  I  am  still  quite  ready  to  prove  to  be 
practicable,  if  necessaiy,  in  spite  of  all  that  has  been  said 
against  it,  and  of  the  objections  to  it,  which,  it  is  rightly 
stated,  I  haye  m^^self  foreseen.  If  they  concede,  as  they 
must,  that  the  alteration  of  a  star's  or  of  a  planet's  course  is 
not  a  fit  object  of  petition,  the  onus  probandi  of  explaining 
why,  and  also  of  stating  what  objects  may  be  prayed  for, 
rests  with  them.  K  thej'  consent  to  make  every  event  a 
legitimate  object  of  prayer,  then  thej'  are  released  from  this 
obligation,  and  not  otherwise. 

But  what  has  been  the  practical  mode  of  arranging  the 
two  classes  hitherto?  for  that  they  have  been  recognized  by 
religious  people  in  all  time,  although  perhaps  almost  uncon- 
sciousl}^,  is  obvious.  The  comprehensiveness  of  either  class 
has  varied  at  different  periods,  but  precisely  in  obedience  to 
the  intelligent  acquaintance  of  mankind  with  ph3'sical  phe- 
nomena, nothing  more :  there  is  the  whole  secret.  In  the 
early  stages  of  man's  histor}',  when  his  acquaintance  with 
those  phenomena  was  far  more  intelligent,  he  was  ready  to 
make  almost  any  event  the  object  of  petition  to  some  imagi- 
nary unseen  power,  to  any  deit}',  or  the  many  deities  b}' 
which  he  fancied  himself  to  be  surrounded, — deities,  be  it 
remarked,  of  a  malevolent  or  adverse  character  towards 
him ;  a  belief  natural  enough  to  a  man  surrounded  by  the 
forces  of  Nature,  which,  as  3etj  he  could  not  tame,  or  teach 
to  do  his  bidding;. 


132  On  Prayer. 

This  dilemma,  however,  soon  called  forth  an  intermediate 
man,  who  obtained  his  share  of  food  and  shelter  without 
labor,  by  claiming  to  possess  some  influence  with  the  deity 
to  be  propitiated,  or  coaxed  into  compliance.  Katurallj', 
any  occurrence  might  then  furnish  an  object  of  petition ; 
the  credulity  and  ignorance  of  the  worshipper,  and  the 
daring  and  tact  of  the  intermediate  man,  being  the  two 
factors  from  which  almost  an^'  absurdity  was  producible. 
From  that  time  to  the  present,  advance  in  knowledge  has 
enlarged  the  class  of  objects  not  to  be  prayed  for,  and  has 
also,  by  equal  steps,  diminished  the  pretensions  of  the  inter- 
mediate man,  producing,  in  his  place,  the  priest,  now  an 
educated  and  conscientious  teacher.  It  is  not  marvellous, 
however,  that  he  is  always  in  antagonism  with  the  i)hysieist. 
For  it  is  solely  due  to  the  observation,  labor,  and  thought 
of  the  patient  searcher  into  the  physical  conditions  of  the 
universe,  that,  year  by  3-ear  during  the  world's  historj-,  its 
phenomena  have  been  removed  from  the  realm  of  the  provi- 
dential and  supernatural,  and  placed  in  that  of  natural  and 
unvarying  order.  Thus  it  is  that  Class  I.  grows  larger 
day  by  day,  while  Class  II.  diminishes  in  like  proportion. 
Where  shall  tliis  progress  stop  ?  Will  any  say  it  stops  to- 
day, or  a  year  hence,  or  that  it  will  not  continue  to  go  on 
as  long  as  one  single  intelligent  scientific  worker  dwells  on 
the  globe?  Class  I.  must  inevitably  grow  larger  and  larger  ; 
Class  II.,  as  inevitably  smaller.  When  and  where  will  the 
professed    believer    in    petition   venture   to   draw   the   line 


On  Prayer.  133 

between  them?  He  must  follow,  drawn  by  inexorable 
power,  in  the  wake  of  advancing  science,  and  after  hard 
resistance,  as  alwa^'s ;  giving  up  one  post  after  another,  and 
resigning  event  after  event,  to  be  detached  from  the  once 
great  class  of  objects  to  be  prayed  for,  and  admitting  their 
title  of  admission  into  the  great  class  of  settled  and  ordered 
events  not  to  be  influenced  by  human  interference,  and 
capitulating  with  the  best  grace  he  may  when  forced  to 
surrender. 

So  it  follows,  that  what  a  man  will  pray  for  depends  pre- 
cisely on  the  extent  of  his  intelligent  acquaintance  with  the  V 
phenomena  around  and  within  him.  The  more  ignorant  he 
is  of  these,  and  of  their  modes  of  occurrence,  the  larger  his 
field  for  petition :  the  more  intelligent,  the  smaller  must  be 
his  range. 

Past  experience,  then,  makes  it  very  probable  that  the  class 
of  phenomena  which  have  an  order  as  defined  as  that  of  the 
movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  that  is,  a  regularity 
without  known  exception,  is  a  very  large  one.  And  there 
are  many,  who,  perhaps  not  unreasonably-,  believe  the  analogy 
thus  offered  to  be  so  strong,  that  it  is  not  improbable  that 
there  reall}-  are  no  events  which  are  not  equally  determined 
by  natural  order,  and  might  be  equall}'  foreseen  and  fore- 
cast, were  we  in  possession  of  the  necessar}'  data. 

To  applj',  by  some  means,  a  scientific  method  to  solve  a 
part  of  the  problem,  was  the  sole  object  of  m}'  proposal. 
It   is   matter    of    extreme    satisfaction    to    me   to   find    an 


134  On  Prayer. 

authority  so  respected  as  that  of  Dr.  Littledale  agreeing 
with  me  on  the  legitimacy  of  the  object,  and  asserting  that 
the  efficacy  of  petition  to  Deity  is  a  subject  for  uncompro- 
mising, exhaustive  scientific  research.  We  differ  as  to  the 
jnocle,  —  the  devotion  of  the  hospital  ward  to  the  purpose. 
That  is  a  mere  trifle  :  I  simply  desired  to  raise  the  question, 
and  to  call  public  attention  to  it.  For  a  large  majority  of 
writers  on  this  subject  have  labored  to  show  that  prayer  is 
not  a  fit  subject  for  such  an  inquiry,  and  that  I  have  sinned 
by  laying  a  profane  hand  on  the  ark  of  God,  in  proposing 
to  learn  whether  or  no  he  will  thus  specifically  aid  us  in  the '' 
humane  work  of  battling  with  disease,  suffering,  and  death. 
Still  I  am  no  partisan  of  the  scheme,  and  shall  gladly  listen 
to  a  plan  which  shall  better  attain  our  common  end.  For 
myself,  1  take  leave  of  the  controvers}'.  The  practical  work 
of  life,  which  circumstances  have  laid  on  me,  forbids  my 
further  participation  at  present  in  the  inquiry.  It  is  evi- 
dently full  of  interest  for  myriads  of  others  also.  As  a 
contribution  towards  its  solution,  it  is  impossible  to  over- 
rate Mr.  Galton's  laborious  and  scientific  record  relating  to 
the  subject,  nor  to  overlook  its  importance.  Had  1  done 
nothing  more  than  elicit  the  production  of  this  last  work  of 
his,  I  should  have  been  amply  content. 

I  have  only  to  remind  my  former  critics   and   any  future 

,   ones,  that   it   is  beside  the  issue  to  term  me  or  my  views 

"materialistic,"  "  fatalist,"  or  the  like.     It  forms  no  part  of 

a  candid  reply  to  do  so.     And  although  many  good  people 


On  Prayer.  135 

still  respond  to  the  prejudice  so  easily  and  so  cheapl}-  aroused 
b}'  attaching  epithets  Mvhich  have  little  meaning,  and  are  really 
designed  to  be  opprobrious,  the  great  body  of  the  public 
desire  a  rational  solution  of  every  important  question,  and 
have  a  right  to  expect  its  discussion  unalloyed  with  adventi- 
tious matter  of  this  kind. 

The  Author  of  "Hints  towards  a  Serious  Attempt  to 

ESTIMATE   THE   VALUE   OF   THE    PrAYER   FOR  THE    SiCK." 

Athenaeum  Club,  September,  1872. 


3, 

There  is  a  storj"  told  somewhere,  that,  when  Copernicus 
divulged  his  theor3'  of  the  earth  running  round  the  sun,  a 
countryman  came  to  him,  declaring  that  he  would  believe  it 
when  he  saw  it,  and  insisted  on  his  working  an  experiment 
to  give  him  ocular  demonstration.  I  forget  what  Copernicus 
did;  but  I  Ivnow  that  Francis  Bacon  would  have  said,  "A 
man  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  nature  in  any  other  way 
than  he  enters  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  —  b}-  becoming  a  little 
child,"  and  b}'  submitting  to  what  the  Master  leaches,  and 
the  rules  of  his  school. 

The  experiment  proposed  in  the  paper  forwarded  by  Prof. 

1  Even  Dr.  Littledale,  with  all  his  desire  to  test  scientifically  the 
value  of  prayer,  condescends  to  style  uie  "a  materialistic  surgeon  or 
plu'sician,"  for  proposing  a  method,  and  adroitly  contrives  to  associate 
me  in  the  same  paragrai)li  with  Voltaire.  For  what  end,  but  to  cause 
prejudice?  surely  not  to  enforce  an  argument. 


136  On  Prayer. 

Tj-ndall  is  not  conceived  in  the  spirit  of  Bacon.  Every 
one  sees  how  unreasonable  it  would  be  to  propose,  as  a  test 
of  the  efficac}'  of  prayer,  that  all  the  clergy  of  the  Church, 
joined  by  all  the  Dissenting  ministers,  should  agree  to  praj^ 
that  the  sun  should  stand  still  on  a  certain  day  at  noon,  and 
to  allow  that  prayer  is  of  no  value,  provided  he  went  on  in  I 
his  course.  AVe  laugh  at  Rousseau's  method  of  settling  the 
question  of  the  existence  of  God :  he  was  to  pray,  and  then 
throw  a  stone  at  a  tree,  and  decide  in  the  aflSrmative  or 
negative,  according  as  it  did,  or  did  not,  strike  the  object. 
The  experiment  projected  by  Prof.  Tyndall's  friend  is 
scarcely  less  irrational. 

A  man  has  to  enter  the  one  kingdom  as  he  does  the  other, 
—  by  a  docile  attention  to  its  laws.  But  the  laws  of  the  two 
kingdoms  are  not  the  same.  In  the  one,  the  investigator 
must  patientl}'  watch  phenomena,  and  settle  every  thing  by 
observation  and  experiment.  But  he  would  not  thereby  be 
required  to  submit  to  such  a  proposal  as  that  made  to  Coper- 
nicus. The  Christian  has  also  a  method  which  he  follows  ; 
and  he  can  explain  it  to  those  who  may  wish  to  follow  it,  and 
he  can  give  good  reasons  for  his  belief  in  Providence  and 
prayer.  But  he  gets  his  evidence  in  a  different  way  from 
the  man  of  science  ;  and  he  is  not  obliged,  in  logical  consis- 
tency', to  test  his  belief  in  the  wa}'  propounded  in  the  paper 
inserted  in  "  The  Contemporary-  Review." 

(1.)  The  proposal  is  not  consistent  with  the  method  and 
Jaws  of  God's  spiritual  kingdom.     The  project,  in  fact,  is  im- 


On  Prayer.  137 

perious,  and  is  as  little  likely  to  be  successful  as  the  attempts 
by  scientific  men  to  force  Nature  to  reveal  her  secrets  by 
"anticipation,"  or  b}'-  dogmatic  reason.  God's  spiritual 
kingdom,  like  his  natural,  non  imperatur  nisi  parendo.  The 
project  is  not  prescribed  by  God,  nor  is  it  one  to  which  we 
can  reasonably  expect  him  to  conform. 

Every  intelligent  defender  of  prayer  has  allowed  a  becom- 
ing sovereignty  to  God  in  answering  the  petitions  presented 
to  him.  A  number  of  persons  are  in  the  ward  of  a  hospi- 
tal ;  and  there  are  Christian  visitors  praying  for  them,  for 
then*  spiritual  improvement  and  for  their  recovery  —  if  it  he  I 
agreeable  to  the  will  of  God.  In  answering  this  prayer,  God 
may  provide  that  some,  or  man}-,  or  all,  or  that  few  or  none, 
be  cured,  as  it  may  be  for  the  good  of  the  persons  praying, 
or  the  persons  pra3-ed  for,  or  of  the  families  and  community 
to  which  they  belong.  And  this  sovereignty  of  God,  alwa3-s 
regulated  by  wisdom,  is  not  to  be  interfered  with  by  a  pro- 
posal dated  from  the  "Athenaeum  Club,  Pall  Mall,"  even  if 
it  has  the  sanction  of  one,  who,  conforming  to  the  methods 
of  science,  has  performed  very  effective  experiments  on  heat 
and  sound.  Ever}'  one  sees  that  the  world  might  be  thrown 
into  inextricable  confusion,  were  God  necessitated  to  attend 
to  such  schemes,  sanctioned  in  no  way  in  his  Word,  or  b}' ; 
the  religion  of  Nature.  In  answering  prayer,  God  has  (to 
speak  after  the  manner  of  men)  to  weigh  a  thousand  circum- 
stances, including  the  character  of  the  men  who  pray,  and 
the  spirit  in  which  they  pray,  and  the  character   of  those 


138  On  Prayer. 

who  are  prayed  for,  and  the  influence  the}'  ma}'  exercise  on 
societj'  at  large.  A  few  years  ago  the  late  Prince  Albert 
was  in  a  raging  fever ;  and  hundreds  of  thousands  were 
praying  for  his  recover}'.  Must  God  answer  these  pra3'ers 
by  restoring  the  prince  to  health,  and  this  whatever  be  the 
consequences?  It  is  said,  —  on  what  I  believe  to  be  good 
authority',  —  that,  shortly  after  the  death  of  the  prince,  the 
wise  and  good  Queen  of  Great  Britain  declined  following 
the  counsel  of  her  advisers,  when  they  wished  to  proclaim 
war  against  America,  and  she  did  so  because  her  departed 
husband  was  always  opposed  to  such  a  fratricidal  proceed- 
ing. We  may  put  the  supposition  that  the  prince,  if  alive, 
might  not  have  had  influence  enough  to  stoj)  the  war*;  and 
that  it  could  have  been  arrested  onl}-  by  the  firmness  of  a 
woman  inspired  by  regard  for  the  dead.  I  enter  in  no  waj' 
into  the  secret  designs  of  God  ;  but,  putting  the  supposition, 
I  ask  whether  even  the  hundreds  of  thousands  pra3'ing 
would  have  been  entitled  to  insist  that  the  prince  should  be 
restored,  when  the  result  would  have  been  the  most  unjusti- 
fiable and  disastrous  war  of  which  our  world  has  been  the 
theatre?  And  might  there  not  be  equally  weiglity  reasons 
why  God  should  not  spare  more  persons  in  the  side  of  the 
hospital  prayed  for  in  the  scientific  experiment  than  in  the 
other  side  not  so  cared  for  by  man  ? 

It  is  said  of  our  Lord,  that,  at  a  certain  place,  he  could  not 
do  many  might}'  works,  "  because  of  their  unbelief."  In 
order  to  his  hearing  prayer,  in  order  to  his  answering  prayer, 


On  Prayer.  139 

God  requires  faith,  as  large,  at  least,  as  a  mustai'd-seed.  1 
With  the  evidence  which  ever}'  man  has  furnished  to  him  of 
the  existence,  the  love,  and  care  of  God,  this  requirement  is 
inost  reasonable.  It  can  be  shown  that  there  is  admirable 
wisdom  in  God's  plan  of  connecting  the  acceptance  of  pi'ayer 
and  the  answer  to  prayer  with  a  previous  or  contemporane- 
ous faith.  And  it  can  be  shown  that  our  Lord  showed  equal 
wisdom  in  declining  to  work  miracles  on  every  occasion. 
He  always  refused  to  work  them  for  mere  empty  display,  or 
to  gratiA'  the  wonder-seeking  spirit  of  the  Jews.  Where 
the}-  demanded  signs  in  an  arl)itrary  manner,  he  told  them 
they  had  enough  of  evidence,  and  declared,  that,  if  the}' 
believed  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  would  thej' 
believe,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead,  —  a  declaration  which 
was  realized,  when,  a  short  time  after,  he  rose  from  the  • 
dead,  and  the  Jews  continued  as  incredulous  as  ever.  Sup- 
pose the  proposed  experiment  succeeded  for  once,  the  scien- 
tific men  would  have  some  wa}-  of  accounting  for  it,  and 
would  insist  on  the  experiment  being  repeated  once  and 
again  ;  which  could  be  done  onlj'  at  the  expense  of  deranging 
the  whole  of  the  delicatel}-  hung  scales  of  Providence. 

(2.)  The  pi'oject  is  not  consistent  with  the  spirit  in  which 
Christians  praj'.  The}'  pray  because  commanded  to  pray ;  ^ 
they  pray  because  it  is  the  prompting  of  their  hearts,  com- 
mended by  conscience  ;  they  pray  because  they  expect  God 
to  listen  to  the  offering-up  of  their  desires  ;  they  pray  because 
they  expect  God  to  grant  what  they  pray  for,  so  far  as  it 


140  On  Prayer. 

may  be  agreeable  to  his  will  and  their  own  good.  But  they 
shi'ink  from  praying  as  an  experiment.  A  dutiful  child 
would  shrink  from  such  an  experimenting  on  the  loA-e  of  an 
earthly  father.  Such  pra3-er,  they  feel,  would  imply  doubt 
on  their  part,  and  might  give  offence  to  One  who  expects  us 
to  come  to  him  as  children  unto  a  father.  They  fear  that  it 
might  look  as  if  they  required  him  to  answer  prayer  in  a 
particular  way,  whether  it  may  be  for  good  or  evil,  and 
unjustifiably  expose  him  to  reproach,  provided  he  refused  to 
comply  with  the  uncalled-for  demand. 

Christians  would  shrink  from  the  idea  of  praying  for  the 
sick  on  the  one  side  of  a  hospital,  and  not  praying  for  those 
on  the  other.  To  reduce  the  whole  project  to  an  absurdity, 
we  can  conceive  one  body  of  men  praying  for  one  part  of 
the  ward,  and  another  for  the  other  part,  and  thus  no  choice 
left  to  God.  True,  there  must  be  something  like  this  when 
there  is  war  between  two  countries  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  the 
late  war  between  France  and  Germany.  But,  in  all  such 
cases,  God  is  judge,  and  ma^^,  we  suppose,  answer  the  praters 
of  the  right  side  :  nay,  he  nuay  answer  the  pra3'ers  of  both 
sides,  giving  the  victory  to  Germany,  and  the  trial  to  France, 
as  a  means  of  chastening  her,  and  as  she  profits  by  it,  and 
continues  to  pray,  raising  her  to  greater  eminence  in  years 
to  come. 

(3.)  These  considerations  show  the  negative  side  ;  but  I 
cannot  close  without  opening  the  positive  side.  What,  then, 
induces  a  reasonable  man  to  pray  ?     What  reason  has  he  for 


On  Prayer.  141 

thinking  that  his  prayers  will  be  answered?  He  has  abun- 
dant reasons,  quite  as  convincing  as  the  scientific  man  has 
for  believing,  that,  if  he  proceeds  on  the  method  of  induction, 
ho  will  make  Nature  reveal  her  secrets.  But  the  evidence  is 
not  precisely  the  same  in  the  two  cases. 

Every  logician  knows  that  there  are  various  sorts  of  evi- 
dence, each  convincing  in  its  own  department.  There  is 
one  kind  in  ph3'sical  science,  of  which  Prof.  Tyndall  is 
master,  but  another  kind  in  mathematics,  and  yet  a  third 
kind  in  morals  and  in  practical  duty.  A  father,  let  me  sup- 
pose, recommends  his  son  to  follow  virtue,  to  be  temperate, 
chaste,  honest,  and  benevolent,  and  assures  him  that  he  will 
thereby  enjoy  a  much  larger  amount  of  happiness.  But 
young  hopeful  professes  not  to  be  satisfied,  and  wishes  to 
have  clearer  notions  oa  the  specific  point, — whether  a  youth, 
indulging  all  his  desires,  with  onl}^  a  little  prudence,  may  not 
have  as  much  enjoyment  as  one  who  restrains  them  ?  And 
he  insists  that  an  experiment  be  tried  with  the  boj'S  of  a 
poor-house,  one  half  of  whom  are  allowed  every  indulgence, 
while  the  other  half  are  exposed  to  restraint.  The  wise 
father  would  at  once  cut  off  all  such  discussion,  by  showing 
that  virtue  is  a  thing  binding  on  us,  that,  by  its  verj-  nature, 
it  is  fitted  to  lead  to  happiness,  and  bj' pointing  to  the  issues 
of  virtue  and  vice  seen  in  common  life. 

We  are  entitled  to  treat  in  the  same  way  the  proposal 
made  to  us  in  "  The  Suggestive  Letter  "  forwarded  to  the 
"Contemporary   Review."     We   show   that  pra^-er  is   the 


142  On  Prayer. 

becoming  expression  of  gratitude,  the  required  confession 
of  sins  committed.  "We  show  that  God  commands  us  to 
pray  :  "  Men  ought  alwaj'S  to  praj."  It  is  a  confessed  duty 
of  revealed  religion  :  it  is,  also,  a  duty  of  natural  religion  : 
it  is  the  natural  and  proper  outburst  of  a  heart  under  the 
influence  of  becoming  feeling.  We  believe  that  He  who 
thus  commands  us  to  pray,  will,  in  his  own  time  and  wa3^ 
send  an  answer. 

We  should  always  be  prepared  to  leave  a  sovereignty  with 
God  as  to  the  means  he  may  emplo}'  in  answering  prayer.  I 
do  not  believe  that  God  usually  answers  pra3'er  by  violating, 
or  even  changing,  his  own  laws,  —  I  mean  ph3'sical  laws.  In 
answering  pra^^er,  God  will  have  a  respect  to  his  own  laws, 
ordered  so  wisely  and  so  kindly.  A  violent,  capricious 
interference  with  them,  even  in  answer  to  prayer,  might 
work  irremediable  mischief.  But  surely'  God  is  not  pre- 
cluded from  answering  prayer,  because  he  hath  instituted  a 
wise  economy  in  his  physical  government.  I  believe  that 
God  commonly  answers  prayer  hy  natural  means,  appointed 
for  this  purpose  from  the  very  beginning,  when  he  gave  to 
mind  and  matter  their  laws,  and  arranged  the  objects  with 
these  laws  for  the  accomplishment  of  his  wise  and  beneficent 
ends,  —  for  the  encouragement  of  virtue,  and  the  discourage- 
ment of  vice,  and,  among  others,  to  provide  an  answer  to  the 
acceptable  petitions  of  his  people.  God,  in  answer  to 
pra^'er,  may  restore  the  patient  by  an  original  strength  of 
constitution,  or  by  the  well-timed  application  of  a  remedy. 


On  Prayer.  143 

The  two,  the  praj'er  and  its  answer,  were  in  the  very  counsel 
of  God  ;  and,  if  there  had  not  been  the  one,  there  would  not 
have  been  the  other.  The  believer  is  in  need  of  a  blessing, 
and  he  asks  it ;  and  he  finds  that  the  God  who  created  the 
need,  and  prompted  the  prayer,  has  provided  the  means  of 
granting  what  he  needs.  But  what  reason  can  we  have  for 
believing  that  this  experiment,  devised  in  the  Athenaeum 
Club,  Pall  Mall,  has  a  like  place  in  the  counsels  of  heaven? 

He  pra3-s  for  things  agreeable  to  God's  will.  He  will  not 
pray  for  any  thing  which  God  shows  to  be  absolutely  denied 
him.  When  his  son  is  evidently  dead,  he  will  not  pray  that 
God  would  restore  him  to  life  in  this  world.  As  he  prays 
for  the  sufferers  on  one  side  of  a  hospital,  he  will  not  be 
precluded  from  pra3-ing  with  equal  fervency  for  those  on  the 
other  side. 

Led  by  such  reasons  to  praj-,  he  finds  that  his  prayers  are 
answered.  His  experience  confirms  his  faith.  Beginning 
the  exercise  in  faith,  he  gains,  as  he  continues,  as  abundant 
evidence  of  the  power  of  prayer  as  of  the  power  of  any  phy- 
sical agent.  In  the  course  of  3'ears,  and  as  he  looks  back 
upon  his  life,  he  can  discover  case  upon  case  in  which, 
unobserved  by  the  world,  his  petitions  have  been  granted ; 
or,  rather,  he  perceives,  that,  as  he  praj's  in  duty  and  in  faith, 
his  whole  life  is  ordered  by  the  Lord.  It  is  especially  so, 
when  his  requests  are  for  progress  in  spiritual  excellence. 
When  his  prayers  are  hindered,  he  sees  that  his  moral  prog- 
ress is  hindered.  When  his  aspirations  are  fervent,  he  finds 
that  his  soul  is  filled  with  peace,  with  comfort. 


144  ^'^  Prayer. 

The  proposal  made  in  the  letter  forwarded  by  Prof.  T^'n- 
dall  is  evidently  regarded  as  likelj^  to  be  troublesome  to 
religious  men.  If  thej-  accept,  it  is  expected  that  the  issue 
of  the  experiment  will  cover  them  with  confusion.  If  they 
decline,  the}'  will  be  charged  witli  refusing  to  submit  to  a 
scientific  test.  It  ma}-  turn  out,  however,  that  all  that  the 
letter  proves  is  an  utter  ignorance,  on  the  part  of  certain 
scientific  men,  of  the  kind  of  evidence  by  which  moral  and 
religious  truths  are  sustained.  I  believe  that  the  time  has 
come  when  the  intelligent  public  must  intimate  pretty  de- 
cisively that  those  who  have  excelled  in  physical  experiments 
are  not,  therefore.,  fitted  to  discuss  philosophical  or  religious 
questions.  Persons  who  do  not  follow  the  appropriate 
method  in  phj^sical  science  will  not  be  rewarded  by  dis- 
coveries. Those  who  decline  coming  to  God,  believing  that 
"  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  reward er  of  them  that  diligently 
seek  him,"  need  not  expect  the  blessings  of  religion.  Prof. 
Tyndall  has  faith  in  the  ordinances  of  nature  ;  and  he,  and 
those  who  read  his  works,  have  profited  by  it.  I  have  no 
evidence  that  he  has  studied  so  carefully  the  method  of  earn- 
ing fruit  in  the  kingdom  of  grace  as  in  the  kingdom  of 
nature.  But  of  this  I  am  sure,  that  with  a  lilce  faith  in  God, 
in  his  providence  and  word,  as  he  has  in  science,  he  will 
reap  a  3'et  greater  and  more  enduring  rewarcL 

James  M'Cosh. 

Pkinckton,  N.J.,  U.S.,  Aug.  5,  1872. 


YI. 


CAPTAIN  GALTON   ON  THE  EFFICACY  OF 
PRAYER. 

THE   SPECTATOE. 


In  No.  1,230,  Aug.  ?>,  1872,  pp.  974,  975,  an  editorial  appeared  under 
tliis  title,  which  is  now  placed  first. 

Second  inchulos  letters,  — by  Astley  Cooper  in  favor  of  the  efficacy 
of  prayer,  by  Protagoras  against,  and  by  J.  J.  Murphy  in  favor. 
These  came  out  in  the  following  number  of  "The  Spectator,"  Aug. 
10,  pp.  1011-1013. 

10 


VI. 

CAPTAIN  GALTON  CRITICISED, 

rpHE  scientific  men,  the  men,  that  is,  who  hold  it  weakness 
to  believe  sti'ongl}-  an}'  thing  not  supported  b}'  material 
evidence,  —  evidence  which  can  be  tested  b}' the  senses, — 
appear  disposed  to  fight  out  their  lifelong  contest  with  the 
supernaturalists  upon  the  battle-ground  of  the  efflcac}'  of 
prater.  In  so  doing,  they  are  exhibiting  considerable  powers 
of  strateg}-.  With  the  instinct  of  heretics,  —  that  is,  of  men 
who  are  resisting  a  widely  received  opinion,  fighting  an  army 
more  numerous  than  their  own,  —  the}' perceive  that  this  is 
the  kej^  to  the  position  ;  that,  if  this  ground  is  lost,  all  is  lost ; 
and  perceive,  also,  that  it  is,  of  all  the  thi-eatened  points, 
the  one  most  difficult  to  defend.  We  ma}-  say  broadly,  — 
what  they  see  clearly  enough,  though  they  will  not  openly 
say  it  (a  reticence  which  is  not  quite  creditable  to  their 
fairness) ,  —  that  if  prayer  is  not  answered,  and  cannot  be 
answered,  then  there  is  in  the  Christian,  or,  rather,  the  reli- 
gious, sense  of  the  word,  no  God,  If  he  exists  at  all  as  a 
sentient  being,  of  whom  man  cau  form  some  limited    and 

147 


148  Captain  Gallon   Criticised. 

inadequate  conception,  he  must  have  some  relation  to  tlie 
sentient  beings  he  has  created,  or  has  suffered  to  be 
created  (for  we  will  not  exclude  even  the  demiurgus  theory)  ; 
and  he  must  have  some  free-will,  as  his  creatures  have ; 
and  if  there  is  the  relation,  and  if  there  is  the  free-will, 
there  must  be,  to  some  extent,  however  limited,  or  however 
described,  a  power  in  him  of  answering  prayer.  He  must 
be  able  to  do  something,  if  it  be  only  what  a  man  could  do. 
How  anybody  can  get  out  of  that  proposition,  we  confess 
ourselves  wholly  unable  to  conceive.  It  must  be  true  under 
any  conditions  whatever,  compatible  with  his  existence  at 
all.  Suppose  hira  even  a  limited  Being,  a  Demiurgus,  or  that 
mere  ultimate  result  of  natural  evolution  of  which  some 
Atheists  have  dreamed  (and  that  is  the  lowest  view  of  the 
Godhead  of  which  we  can  conceive)  ;  and  still  he  must 
have  some  power,  and  some  relation  to  men,  and,  with  the 
power  and  the  relation,  some  readiness,  or,  to  speaJc  more 
frankly,  some  moral  obligation,  to  attend  to  prayer. 
Inabilit}'  to  do  that  is  equivalent,  for  the  purposes  of  man,  to 
non-existence,  to  the  absence  of  any  relation  between  crea- 
ture and  Creator,  which  it  is  worth  the  trouble  of  analyzing 
or  thinking  about.  With  the  idea  of  prayer,  disappears  the 
idea  of  God,  and,  with  both,  the  whole  of  that  body  of 
supernaturalism  which  the  physicists  so  bitterly  hate.  If 
prayer  is  a  delusion,  so  are  the  creeds,  churches  are  organ-  \ 
ized  superfluities,  priesthoods  are  impostures,  revelations  are 
only  methods   of  securing  a  false  importance  for  messages 


Captain   Gallon   Criticised.  149 

addressed  b}-  man  to  himself,  —  messages  which  may  be 
more  or  less  new  or  important  in  the  field  of  morals,  but  are 
no  more  to  be  reverenced  than  similar  messages  in  the  field 
of  science.  In  fact,  ever}'  thing  that  physicists  dislike  dis- 
appears with  belief  in  the  eflScac}'  of  prayer,  and  the  field  is 
left  clear  for  their  faith  (which  we  freely  concede  to  them  is, 
if  not  the  only  alternative,  by  far  the  most  reasonable  alter- 
native) ,  —  the  dominance  of  unalterable  law,  the  perpetual 
evolution  of  physical  effect  from  physical  cause.  At  the 
same  time,  no  position,  as  the  ph^'sicists  are  well  aware,  is 
so  difficult  to  maintain,  by  evidence  which  they  will  accept, 
as  that  of  the  efficacy  of  praj-er.  The  very  best  evidence, 
namel}^,  the  experience  of  innumerable  trustworthy  persons, 
who  in  all  ages  have  asserted  that  their  praj-ers  have  been  / 
answered,  they  will  not  accept,  indeed  are  precluded  by  their  // 
system  fi.*om  accepting ;  and  of  visible  tests  such  as  they  / 
would  accept,  there  can  be  none,  such  test  involving,  ex 
necessitate,  the  coercion  of  a  Being  whom  it  is  the  first  doc- 
trine of  those  who  believe  in  prayer  to  declare  beyond  the 
possibility  of  such  coercion.  Prof.  Tj'ndall's  challenge  to 
pra}^  for  the  inmates  of  one  ward  in  a  hospital,  and  not  for 
another,  and  see  what  followed,  is  inherently  absurd,  not 
only  for  the  reasons  we  gave  the  other  day,  but  also  for  this, 
that,  unless  God  possesses  free-will,  prayer  is  a  waste  of 
emotional  energy- ;  and,  if  he  possesses  free-will,  he  cannot 
be  coerced  into  action  in  the  manner  the  professor  suggests 
he  should  be.     We  might  as  well  test  the  royalty  of  an  abso- 


150  Captain   Galton   Criticised. 

lute  monarch  by  demanding,  that,  if  ro^'al,  he  should  grant 
the  next  petition  addressed  to  him,  even  though  granting  it 
denied  the  freedom  of  his  royalty.  All  that  can  be  proved  of 
prayer  is,  that  its  efficacy  in  some  form  is  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  existence  of  a  God  (for  with  Mr.  Mill,  we 
cannot  admit  the  notion  of  God  creating,  and  abandoning 
responsibility  to  the  created)  ;  that  the  best  men  in  all  ages 
have  not  only  believed  it,  but  acted  on  the  belief,  without 
1  being  ever  deterred  by  the  mass  of  experience  to  the  con- 
trary which  they  must  have  gradually  acquired ;  and  that 
keen,  shrewd,  nay,  strange  to  say,  sceptical  intellects  of  the 
present  day,  in  every  country  and  under  every  condition, 
assert  that  their  prayers  have  been  answered.  What  other 
evidence  is  there,  or  can  there  be,  for  an  assertion  which 
most  physicists  credit,  but  which  many  would  declare  to  be 
quite  incredible,  that  the  will  —  mere  volition,  without 
change  of  circumstances  —  can  subdue  or  even  banish  exist- 
ing pain?  If  the  testimony  of  consciousness  is  valueless 
about  the  one  thing,  wh}^  not  about  the  other? 

While,  however,  we  admit  at  once  the  enormous  impor- 
tance of  the  question,  and  the  enormous  difficulty  of  demon- 
strating our  side  of  it  to  men  who  will  not  accept  our  data, 
we  are  not  bound  to  submit  patiently  to  arguments  such  as 
those  by  which  Capt.  Francis  Galton,  in  this  month's  "  Fort- 
nightly," evidentl}^  thinks  he  has  disposed  of  the  efficacy  of 
prayer.  The^^  are  a  little  too  trying  to  one's  intellectual 
patience.     Frof.  Tyndall,  though  he  scoffed  with  a  kind  of 


Captain  Gallon   Criticised.  151 

pride  which  seems  to  us  out  of  place  in  a  discussion  in  which 
he  himself  thinks  certainty  so  difficult  of  attainment,  did 
propose  a  test,  which,  though  in  our  judgment  so  inapplicable 
as  to  raise  doubts  of  his  seriousness,  was,  at  all  events  in 
form,  the  test  which  physicists  would  apply  when  experi- 
menting with  a  view  to  certainty  on  any  doubtful  point  of 
physical  research,  say,  the  efficacy  of  a  new  drug,  or  system 
of  hygienic  treatment.  But  Capt.  Galton  says  no  test  is 
needed.  The  experience  of  mankind  is  already  conclusive. 
Prayer  never  is  answered,  because  doctors  never  have  relied 
on  prayers  for  the  sick ;  because  Christian  sovereigns,  who 
are  universally  prayed  for,  die,  on  the  average,  sooner  than 
other  rich  people  (probably  from  a  family  tendency,  the 
Christian  sovereigns  of  Europe  being  all  members  of  a 
single  family  or  clan,  all,  in  fact,  in  one  way  or  other,  the  de- 
scendants of  one  man)  ;  because  missionary  ships,  which  are 
prayed  for,  are  no  safer  than  slavers,  which  are  not ;  because 
prayerful  persons  do  not  outstrip  secular  persons  in  the  race 
of  life,  half  our  dukes,  for  example,  being  the  descendants 
of  kings'  mistresses ;  because  insurance-offices  make  no 
difference  in  favor  of  the  pious  ;  and  because  the  clerics  who 
pray  for  the  success  of  their  enterprises  more  than  other 
people  are  not  more  successful  in  those  enterprises.  On  this 
evidence,  which  we  shall  not  dispute,  Capt.  Galton  affirms 
that  prayer  has  no  efficacy ;  that  belief  in  it  will  die,  like 
any  other  superstition ;  and  that  it  is,  in  all  probability,  a 
mere  bleat,  an  expression  of  suffering,  which,  like  the  bleat 
of  a  sheep  in  pain,  gives  relief,  we  know  not  why. 


152  Captain   Galton   Criticised. 

We  will  not  answer  this  astounding  argument,  as  we  might 
at  first  sight  feel  inclined  to  do,  b}^  declaring  it  phj'sicism 
gone  wild,  a  direct  attempt  to  weigh  mental  consequences  in 
a  pair  of  brass  scales,  or  by  pointing  out,  that,  according  to 
the  Christian  belief  which  Capt.  Galton  is  attacking,  God 
has  expressly  declared  that  he  does  not  limit  his  benevolence 
by  men's  deserving,  raining  equally  on  the  just  and  unjust, 
or  by  asking  Capt.  Galton  for  proof  that  his  pious  persons 
ever  pray  earnestl}'  without  the  earnest  addition  of  a  pra^-er 
that  God's  will  shall  be  done,  and  not  theirs  ;  but  will  meet 
him  face  to  face  on  his  own  ground,  with  his  own  method, 
and  with  a  blank  denial.  In  two  cases,  so  large  and  so  visi- 
ble as  to  be  better  than  any  of  his  own,  persons,  about  whom 
the  presumption  alike  of  prayer  and  of  a  prayerful  spirit  is 
greater  than  it  is  about  any  of  those  he  names,  have  been 
enormousl}',  almost  miraculously  successful.  If  it  can  be 
asserted  of  any  human  beings  that  they  prayed  for  the  diffu- 
sion of  their  ideas  of  faith,  it  can  be  asserted  about  the  early 
Christians.  If  it  can  be  asserted  about  any  praj^er,  that  it 
involved  an  antecedent  improbability  of  realization,  it  can 
be  asserted  about  that  particular  prayer.  And  in  spite  of  all 
circumstances,  of  the  reluctance  of  mankind,  of  the  horror- 
struck  resistance  of  princes,  of  the  antagonism  between 
those  ideas  and  the  instincts  of  mankind,  of  the  weakness 
(as  Capt.  Galton  would  say)  of  those  ideas,  that  prayer  was 
heard,  those  ideas  were  diffused :  that  faith  is  the  faith  of  the 
peoples  who  control  the  world.     It  is  not  we  who  are  press- 


Captain   Galton   Criticised.  153 

ing  that  kind  of  evidence  for  prayer :  we  are  simply  accept- 
ing Capt.  Gallon's  method,  and  giving  him  an  overwhelming 
instance  of  a  cause  which  was  hopeless,  which  was  prated 
for,  and  which  did  win.  The  other  instance  is  an  even 
stronger  one,  on  Capt.  Galton's  system  of  proof.  He  sa3's 
that  God  is  incessantly  asked  to  grant  sovereigns  long  life, 
and  they  die  quicker  than  other  people.  We  say,  in  return, 
that  God  is  perpetuall}'  asked,  in  the  same  formal  way,  to 
protect  the  Papacy,  and  that  in  spite  of  all  circumstances,  of 
all  oppositions,  of,  as  we  think,  its  own  inherent  and  neces- 
sary tendenc}'  to  death,  —  its  pretensions  being  baseless,  — 
the  Papacj'  endures  through  the  ages,  and  seems,  as  Macaulay 
said,  as  if  it  might  survive  all  existing  institutions.  We  do 
not  sa}'  post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc,  in  the  second  instance 
we  could  not  say  it ;  but  Capt.  Galton,  by  the  law  of  his 
method,  is  bound  to  sa}-  it  for  us.  If  the  absence  of  protec-^ 
tion  for  churches  from  lightning,  and  of  kings  from  early 
death,  are  proofs  that  prayer  is  useless,  then  the  victory  of 
Christianity  and  the  durability  of  the  Popedom  are  greater, 
because  more  certain  and  visible,  proofs  that  prayer  is  useful. 

THE   EFFICACY   OF   PRAYER. 

[to    the    editor    of    "  THE    SPECTATOR."] 

Sir,  —  The  thanks  of  one  so  obscure  as  m3-self  can  be  of 
ver}-  little  importance  to  you  for  your  recent  able  and  in- 
teresting article  in  the  controversy'  touching  the  efficacy  of 
prajer  ;  but  they  are   due,  not  merely  from  me,  but  from 


154  Captain   Galton   Griticised. 

hundreds  of  others ;  and  you  must  allow  me,  as  I  am  sure 
3-ou  will,  judging  from  your  well-known  courtesy  to  corre- 
spondents, to  tender  them  in  ni}^  own  name,  and  in  the 
names  of  many  of  your  readers  with  whom  I  have  conversed 
on  the  subject.  Your  arguments  are  complete  and  strongly 
compact,  so  far  as  they  go,  and  I  can  hardly  hope  to 
strengthen  them  ;  but  concurrent  lines  of  thought  are  like 
parallel  streams  when  thej'  meet,  and  swell  the  volume,  and 
increase  the  force.  On  this  principle,  I  would  submit  for 
consideration  the  following  suggestions,  which,  I  think,  are 
not  foreign  to  the  point :  — 

1.  The  opponents  to  the  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer 
Ij  assume  that  there  is  a  promise  that  all  prayers  shall  be 
J  answered.  From  whence  do  they  get  this  assumption? 
Possibl}^  they  would  answer.  From  the  words  which  we  regartl 
as  divine,  "  Ask,  and  ye  shall  have,"  &c.  But  surelj'  such 
a  promise  as  this  must  be  fenced  and  limited.  This  may  be 
illustrated  by  the  relation  of  parent  and  child.  We  encour- 
age our  chiklren  to  give  us  their  confidence,  and  to  make 
known  to  us  their  wants.  But  a  Avant  made  known  is  not 
necessarily  a  want  supplied,  though  it  maj-  be  quite  in  our 
power  to  grant  it ;  and  this,  because,  in  our  superior  intelli- 
gence and  fiu'ther-seeing  wisdom,  we  know  that  the  petition 
granted  would  l)rini2;  Avith  it  mischievous  or  useless  conse- 
quences.  We  withhold,  not  because  we  are  unable  to  grant : 
we  refuse  tiie  peiition,  not  in  indifference,  but  with  the  truest 
interest.      The  child  sees  not  that  now  ;  but   in   after-life, 


Captain   Galton   Criticised.  155 

when  the  'man  comes  to  reflect,  he  understands  and  appre- 
ciates. Ma}^  not  all  this  apply  to  the  divine  Fatherhood  of 
God?  By  the  side  of  his  intelligence  and  age,  the  most 
cultured,  the  most  experienced,  and  the  most  advanced  in 
age,  are  but  the  veriest  children.  And  even  more  :  some  of 
us,  as  we  look  back,  can  see  that  the  withholding  the  coveted 
gift  by  the  divine  Hand  was  the  truest  kindness,  and  the  ' 
best  answer  to  our  pra^-er ;  and  as  we  advance  another 
stage,  by  a  reasoning  which  we  have  a  perfect  right  to  use, 
we  may  expect,  that  "  what  we  know  not  now,  we  shall 
hereafter." 

2.  And,  if  the  words  of  the  Master  must  be  limited  in  the 
matter  of  the  promise  of  the  fulfllment  of  solicitations  from 
the  divine  Hand,  his  life  teaches  exactly  the  same  lesson. 
We  who  accept  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  alwa3's 
speak  of  its  Author's  life  as  one  of  constant  communion 
with  the  Father ;  but  he  asked  for  that  which,  at  times,  was 
denied  him,  though  he  said,  "  I  know  that  thou  hearest  me 
alwaj^s."  Two  memorable  instances  stand  out.  The  Garden 
of  Gethsemane  was  the  scene  of  the  one,  and  the  hour  that 
of  the  intense  mental  agony.  Thrice  was  the  prayer  re- 
peated, "  Father,  if  thou  be  willing,  remove  this  cup  from 
me;"  but  it  was  not  removed:  it  was  drained  to  its  last 
deadly  drop.  But  in  another  waj' it  was  answered,  "  Ajid 
there  appeared  an  angel  from  heaven,  strengthening  him." 
The  other  was  the  case  of  St.  Peter:  "Behold,  Satan  hath 
desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat ;  but  I  have 


156  Captain  Galton   Criticised. 

prayed  for  tfiee  that  th}'  faith  fail  not."  But  his  faith  did 
fail ;  and  then  came  the  oath,  the  cowardice,  and  the  lie. 
Direct!}-  the  Master's  prayer  was  unanswered  ;  indirectly.,  in 
another  way,  it  was  answered,  —  in  the  repentant,  experi- 
enced, and  more  powerful  man.  I  do  not  waste  space  in 
applying  :  the  application  is  too  obvious. 

0.  You  rightly  quote  instances,  and  give  historical  facts, 
in  illustration  of  your  arguments  for  the  truth  and  reality  of 
praj'or,  —  that  belief  which  is  so  dear  to  tens  of  thousands. 
You  might  have  gone  to  biography,  if  you  had  chosen. 
Allow  me  to  give  you  an  illustration.  It  w^as  my  happiness 
to  know,  near  the  scene  of  his  labors,  John  Coleridge  Pat- 
teson,  whose  apparent!}'  untimely  death  we  are  all  lamenting. 
Ills  was  not  a  feeble  intellect,  or  a  superstitious  nature,  or  a 
conventional,  phrase-making  tongue.  He  was  a  man  of 
excellent  parts  in  every  way,  and  a  believer  in  and  a  prac- 
tiser  of  pra^'cr.  Above  all  things,  he  asked  those  who  were 
interested  in  his  mission  to  pra}-  for  its  success ;  and  his  ovv-n 
life  was  fortified  by  it.  The  following  incident  in  his  life 
will  illustrate  what  I  mean  :  Some  years  ago  he  landed  on 
an  island,  for  the  second  time,  which  he  was  seeking  to 
Christianize  and  civilize.  He  desired,  after  landing,  to  reach 
the  chiefs  hut ;  and,  to  this  end,  he  asked  some  natives,  whom 
he  saw  on  the  beach,  to  guide  him  thereto.  They  consented  ; 
but,  as  he  followed  their  leading,  the  idea  came  upon  him 
that  they  meant  treachery,  as  indicated  hy  their  vehement 
speech,    gesticulations,   and  angry  backward  glances.     Un- 


Captain   Galton   Criticised.  157 

easiness  took  possession  of  the  bishop  ;  and  he  feared  for  his 
life.  Presenth'  he  came  to  an  abandoned  hut ;  and  for  a  fsAV 
minutes  he  left  his  guides,  and  those  moments  he  employed 
on  his  knees  in  pra3^er.  The  effect,  he  used  to  relate,  of 
thus  commending  himself  to  his  divine  Father,  soul  and 
body,  was  wonderful.  All  fear  left  him,  and  he  came  out 
of  that  hut  regardless  of  consequences.  And  upon  his  treach- 
erous guides  the  effect  was  no  less  wonderful.  The}-  gradu- 
ally ceased  to  plot ;  and  at  last  one  of  them  turned,  confessed 
the  treacher}',  and  offered  to  lead  him  back  to  his  boat  in 
safetj'.  "Was  this  the  superstitious  feelings  of  a  weak  mind, 
or  the  deep  realities  of  the  supernatural  in  answer  to  praj'er? 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

AsTLEY  Cooper. 

[to    the    editor    of    "  THE    SPECTATOR."] 

Sir,  —  The  article  which  appeared  in  your  last  issue  on 
"  Capt.  Galton  on  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer,"  though  written 
with  the  general  spirit  of  fairness  characteristic  of  your 
journal,  3-et  missed  some  points,  and  those  very  important 
ones,  relating  to  the  motives  which  actuate  physicists  in  their 
antagonism  to  the  doctrine  of  prayer  as  popularl}'  held.  One 
very  important  point,  namely,  the  moral  motive  for  their 
antagonism,  seemed  completely-  left  out  of  sight.  This  moral 
motive,  if  we  may  be  allowed  so  to  term  it,  is  the  feeling 
■which  men  have,  who,  being  in  full  possession  of  knowledge, 
experience  opposition  to  its  application.     This  occurs  most 


158  Captain   Galton  Re-enforced. 

emphatically  when  any  attempt  is  made  to  apply  a  scientific 
result  to  human  life.  To  come  down  from  generalities  to 
concrete  facts,  it  is  impossible  scientific  men,  however  thej'^ 
may  be  imbued  with  the  realities  of  science,  can,  in  conse- 
quence, have  intentions  of  making  the  idea  of  a  God  impos- 
sible, or  even  of  upsetting  all  belief  in  what  is  termed  the 
supernatural :  what  is  really  the  case  is,  that  they  wish,  in 
the  interests  of  science  and  the  conditions  of  human  welfare, 
to  get  men  to  a  rational  comprehension  of  the  results  of 
science,  so  as  to  be  able  to  apply  them  in  a  thoroughly 
complete  way  to  human  life,  —  ends  impossible,  so  long  as 
superstitions  infect  human  practice,  though  perhaps  uncon- 
sciouslj^,  in  the  ordinary  ways  of  living. 

The  doctrine  of  prayer  as  popularly  held  is  one  which  is 
completely  in  opposition  to  all  positive  science,  professing,  as 
it  does,  to  be  based  on  facts,  which,  if  true,  throw  doubt  on 
all  inductive  inference,  throwing  doubt,  as  it  does,  on  all  con- 
stancy in  natural  phenomena.  It  is  very  certainly  to  be 
inferred,  from  the  facts  exhibited  b}'  physiology  and  patholo- 
gy, that  the  duration  of  life  is  dependent  on  the  power  an}' 
organism  has  for  assimilating  the  elements  necessary  for 
keeping  up  the  store  of  force  in  it  requisite  for  performing 
its  functions  ;  upon  the  power  it  has  of  rejecting  elements 
which  are  noxious  or  superfluous  ;  and  the  power  it  has  of 
resistance  to  changes  in  its  surroundings  hostile  to  it :  3'et  the 
doctrine  of  pra3-er,  if  true,  implies  that  these  powers  ma}-  be 
increased,  if  suitable  appeal  be  made  to  (he  Deit}'.     Now, 


Captain   Gallon  Re-enforced.  159 

belief  in  such  doctrine,  if  worth}-  of  the  name  of  belief, 
must  act  most  powerfully  on  men's  practice,  especially  in 
matters  of  ordinary'  life.  And  though  the  belief  in  the  doc- 
trine of  pra^'er  is  not  very  implicitly  held  by  the  generality 
of  people  now,  yet  it  has  implicit  acceptance,  and  we  find,  as 
a  result,  general  apatlw  in  the  cause  of  hj^gienic  reform ;  and 
the  path  of  the  sanitary  reformer  is  blocked  by  a  dead- weight 
of  stupidity,  having  its  raison  d'etre  in  a  vague  notion  that 
disease  is  a  consequence  of  an}'  thing  at  all,  rather  than 
inattention  or  direct  violation  of  the  physical  conditions  of 
health,  and  may  be  obviated,  or  even  annihilated,  by  due 
ceremonial  observances  towards  the  Deity.  And  medical 
men  find  themselves  checkmated  in  their  eflforts  towards  the 
cure  and  prevention  of  disease  hy  superstitions  more  worthy 
of  Central  Africa  than  of  Great  Britain  in  the  nineteenth 
centur}-. 

If  God  is  a  being  ixwy  thing  like  one  which  we  could  term 
intelligent,  and  capable,  likewise,  of  volition,  we  must,  as  the 
writer  of  your  article  says,  belieYe-hini  capable  of  anasEfiring 
pra3-er.  But  this  is  not  the  question  in  dispute,  but,  rather, 
"  Has  he  made  the  universe  in  such  a  way  as  to  necessitate 
his  occasional  exfra-interference  in  ways  at  variance  (for, 
whatever  sophisms  may  be  used  to  prove  the  contrary, 
the  doctrine  of  pra3-er  presupposes  the  idea  of  miracle  ;  and 
the  idea  of  miracle  is  that  of  contrary  action  to  some  law 
or  laws  of  nature)  with  the  order  he  has  ordained  phenomena 
should  occur  to  us?  "     Now,  in  no  province  of  knowledge  is 


i6o  Captain   Galton  Re-enforced. 

there  more  uncertainty  than  in  that  of  medicine  ;  and,  there- 
fore, in  no  other  is  there  so  much  room  for  contradictory 
hypotheses  :  but  from  the  analogies  of  demonstratively  ever- 
present  law  in  other  regions  of  Nature,  have  we  any  reason 
to  conclude  medicine  to  be  an  exception  to  the  dominion  of 
law?  Yet  the  doctrine  of  prayer  amounts  simply  to  the 
assumption  that  it  is.  Prater  has  been,  and  is,  asserted  to 
be  able  to  set  up  conditions  dilferent  from  what  would  have 
been,  if  praj-er  had  not  been  used  ;  and  most  particularly  is 
this  asserted  in  matters  with  which  medical  science  has  to 
do.  If  this  assertion  is  true,  it  is  very  easy,  as  Dr.  Tyndall 
has  shown,  to  bring  it  to  test.  To  term  such  an  experiment 
as  your  writer  does  an  attempt  at  coercing  Deity  seems  ab- 
svu'd :  it  would  simply  be  an  appeal  from  humanity  suffering 
in  body  and  soul  for  want  of  his  supporting  presence  ;  and 
what  grander  manifestation  of  himself  could  there  be  than  in 
the  healing  of  misery  in  this  nineteenth  century-,  as  he  is  said 
to  have  done  in  the  first?  It  is  impossible  that  the  relief  of 
a  suffering  creature  can  be  derogator}'  to  the  freedom  of  an 
infinitely  benevolent  Being.  Mr.  C4alton's  method  of  testing 
the  efficacy  of  prayer  is  not  so  intrinsicall}^  absurd  as  your 
writer  will  have  it  to  be,  however  matter-of-fact  it  may  seem. 
For  if,  as  is  asserted,  "  the  best  men  in  all  ages  have  not 
only  believed,  but  acted  on  the  belief,  «fcc.,  and  affirm  that 
their  prayers  have  been  answered  ; ' '  and  if,  at  the  same  time, 
the  doctrine  of  the  eflScac}'  of  prayer  is  true,  —  it  follows,  that, 
even  if  the  truth  of  that  doctrine  cannot  be  judged  of  from 


Captain   Gallon  Re-enforced.  i6i 

an  individual  and  special  case,  we  must,  by  all  laws  of 
probability,  be  able  to  discover  evidences  of  its  truth  hy  com- 
parison of  the  averages  (and  these  are  of  health,  long  life, 
and  success)  in  classes  where  it  has  undoubtedl}'  been  acted 
upon,  and  where  we  have  ever}'  reason  to  presume  it  has  not. 
But,  from  Mr.  Galton's  tables  and  statistics,  it  is  ver}'  evi- 
dent that  the  ver^'  opposite  is  the  fact  to  what  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine  would  lead  us  to  expect. 

To  quote  the  spread  and  power  of  Christianity',  and  the 
perdurability  of  the  Papacy,  as  reasons  for  an  opposite  con- 
clusion to  Mr.  Galton  on  his  own  line  of  argument,  seems 
useless.  For  it  is  questionable  whether,  even  in  want  of 
pra3-er,  Christianity  would  not  have  spread  as  rapidl}-  and 
extensively  as  it  has  done,  judging  from  its  history.  And, 
with  regard  to  the  Papac}',  any  argument  drawn  from  its 
continued  existence  is  simpl}'  suicidal ;  for,  in  the  first  place, 
the  popes  have  not  been  ver^-  notoriouslj'  long-lived  after 
attaining  the  throne,  especially'  the  more  enlightened  ones, 
in  spite  of  praj'ers  for  their  well-being  and  long  life  in  this 
world.  And,  secondl}',  if  the  Papacy,  as  a  system,  is  proof 
of  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  —  a  system  of  venerable  imposture 
and  self-delusion,  according  to  the  verdict  of  at  least  one- 
third  Christendom,  —  it  follows  that  the  efficacy  of  pra3'er  has 
no  relation  to  the  intrinsic  merits  or  requirements  of  those 
who  pray :  therefore  it  will  be  better  to  trust  to  the  provi- 
dences given  us  in  the  knowledge  of  natural  laws  than  to 
the  capi'icious  interference  which  has  cursed  and  may  curse 
humanity.  n 


1 62  Captain   Galton  Re-enforced. 

Though  something  might  be  said  on  the  relations  of  the 
idea  of  prayer  to  that  of  natural  law,  it  does  not  enter  into 
the  purpose  of  this  letter ;  but  the  conclusions  to  be  come  to 
are,  that  the  ordinar}^  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  prayer  is  based 
on  no  better  grounds  than  any  other  superstition  which  has 
had  similar  generality  of  acceptance,  sa}',  for  instance,  the 
belief  in  judicial  astrology  ;  and  that,  the  sooner  the  popular 
mind  can  be  disabused  of  it,  the  better,  if  any  progress  is 
to  be  made  towards  a  permanently  elevated  condition  of 
civilized  life,  by  the  means  given  us  in  the  results  of  physical 
and  biological  science. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

Protagoras. 

[We  recommend  this  letter  to  the  consideration  of  those 
who  think  that  only  philosophers  are  discussing  these  ques- 
tions, which  had  better,  therefore,  be  kept  out  of  news- 
papers. It  is  written  by  a  bookseller's  assistant  in  a 
provincial  town. — Ed.  "Spectator."] 

[to  the  editob  of  "the  spectator."] 

Sir, — In  j'our  notice  of  the  3d  inst.  of  Mr.  Galton' s 
argument  for  the  uselessness  of  prayer,  you  quote  from  him, 
without  appearing  to  contradict  it,  that  missionary  ships, 
which  are  prayed  for,  are  no  safer  than  slavers,  which  are 
not.  Is  this  certain?  Many  years  ago,  I  heard  it  stated  in 
a  public  lecture  by  James  Montgomery,  the  poet  (not  to  be 
confounded  with  Robert,  or  Satan  Montgomery),  that  the 


Captain  Gallon  on  the  Efficacy  of  Prayer.      163 

annual  ship  to  the  Moravian  missionary  stations  among  the 
Esquimaux  had  never  been  lost  in  a  period  of  about  a  hun- 
dred years,  and  was  insured  at  half  the  usual  rate  for  ships 
V03''aging  in  the  same  seas,  though  I  presume  that  Lloyds  is 
as  devoid  of  religious  sympathies  as  the  Stock  Exchange. 
I  think  this  fact  worth  noting,  though  m}^  belief  that  God 
hears  and  answers  prayer  does  not  rest  on  this  kind  of 
evidence.  I  am,  sir,  &c., 

Joseph  John  Murphy. 
Old  Forge,  Dunmurry,  Co.  Antrim,  Aug.  5,  1872. 

[to  the  editor  of  "the  spectator.] 
Sir,  — Your  reviewer,  last  week,  repeatedly  gives  me  a  title 
of  his   own  invention  by  styling  me   "Captain."     I  have 
never  been  in  the  army  or  navy  in  my  life. 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

Francis  Galton. 

42  Rutland  Gate,  Aug.  4,  1872. 

["We  had  momentarily,  but  stupidly,  confused  Mr.  Gal- 
ton's  history  with  that  of  a  relative  who  was  in  the  engi- 
neers. —  Ed.  "  Spectator."] 


VII. 
THE  EFFICACY  OF  PRAYER. 


THE   SPECTATOR. 


First,  are  presented  letters  which  appeared  in  "  The  Spectator," 
No.  1,232,  Aug.  17,  by  H.,  by  C.  W.  Stubbs,  by  E.,  by  E.  D.  W.,  and 
by  Silvanus,  pp,  1042-1044. 

Second,  the  editorial  of  the  same  number,  p.  1038. 

Third,  a  letter  from  Francis  Galton,  which  was  published  the  fol- 
lowing week,  Aug.  24,  p.  1073. 

Fourth,  letters  from  "The  Spectator"  of  Aug.  31,  by  John  Mac- 
naught,  by  C.  W.  Stubbs,  by  A.  Babington,  by  J.  W.  F.,  and  by  W.  Y., 
pp.  1104-1106. 

Fifth,  a  letter  by  M.  G.  G.,  p.  1139,  and  an  editorial  of  Sept.  7, 
which  summed  up  and  closed  the  discussion  on  the  part  of  "  The 
Spectator." 


VII. 
THE  EFFICACY  OF   PRAYER. 

[to  the  editor  of  "the  spectator."] 

QIR, — Because  of  the  uniformity  of  Nature,  and  oiu-  con- 
fidence in  the  coatinuousness  of  the  action  of  cause  and 
effect  (which  is  what  our  belief  in  uniformitj-  amounts  to), 
it  does  not  surely  follow  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  whole 
universe  that  is  not  under  the  law  of  cause  and  effect.  That  ■ 
is  the  conclusion  to  which  natural  science,  in  the  hands  of 
the  physicists,  to  use  that  odious  word,  is  more  and  more 
striving  to  drive  us  ;  and  it  is  a  conclusion  which  rests  upon 
a  ver}^  partial  induction  of  the  facts  before  us.  This  latest 
attempt,  for  example,  to  disprove  the  efficacy  of  prajer  by 
an  appeal  to  experience  rests  wholly'  on  the  assumption,  that, 
if  prayer  have  any  validity,  it,  also,  must  be  reducible  under 
the  category  of  cause  and  effect.  That  there  may  be  any- 
where in  the  universe  a  power  outside  of  the  causal  chain  ' 
able  to  modify  the  results  of  the  action  of  the  various  links 
in  that  chain,  without  altering  and  varying  the  connection, 
so  as  to  reduce  all  to  ai-bitrariness,  is  a  conception  that  seems 

167 


1 68  Tlie  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

utterly  alien  to  the  modern  man  of  science.  And  3'et  what 
is  the  exercise  of  man's  free-will  but  precisely'  a  fact  of  that 
kind?  If  the  imiverse  be  a  storehouse  of  merely  physical 
powers,  which  mnst,  under  certain  unvarying  relations, 
always  produce  the  same  precise  connections  and  effects,  — 
an  evolution  that  goes  on  unalterably  and  unaltering,  —  obvi- 
ously there  is  no  room  for  man  to  modify  by  his  action  the 
results  of  these  relations  and  connections.  The  writer  of 
the  article  in  last  week's  "  Spectator,"  signed  "  Protagoras" 
puts  the  matter  in  a  somewhat  crude  way,  but  still  fairly  and 
faithfully,  as  it  is  generally  conceived  by  the  physicist. 
There  are,  he  says,  certain  assimilating  forces  in  the  human 
bod}' ;  and  the  duration  of  the  latter  depends  upon  its  assim- 
ilation of  certain  external  elements,  or  consequent  rejection 
of  certain  others.  Now,  if  the  doctrine  of  prayer  be  true, 
it  must  imply  that  these  powers  may  be  increased,  if  suitable 
appeal  be  made  to  the  Deit3^  No  more  surely  than  the  fact 
that  man  is  able  to  introduce  new  directions  in  the  connec- 
tions of  forces,  that  he  can  vary  and  alter  indefinitelj'  the 
relations  in  which  they  are  to  each  other,  and  to  independent 
objects,  implies  such  a  power.  The  whole  history  of  scien- 
tiflc  discovery  is  a  record  of  the  application,  by  man,  of  the 
laws  and  forces  of  Nature  under  such  conditions  as  bring 
altogether  new_results  ;  and  yet  there  is  no  change  in  the 
character  of  the  connection,  and  no  addition  of  new  elements 
other  than  those  generated  through  the  action  of  these  forces 
themselves  in  their  new  conditions.     All   the  elements  that 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  169 

render  a  steam-engine  possible  were  in  the  world  before  1 
Watt's  great  discovery  ;  and  that  discovery  has  not  made  any 
diflference  in  the  regularity  and  order  of  the  causal  connec- 
tion of  the  forces  employed.  But  a  new  result  has  been  I 
obtained  simpl3'  b}-  the  new  direction  given  to  the  action  of 
these  forces,  b}'  which  man's  power  over  Nature  has  been 
immeasurably  increased,  and  he  has  been  enabled  to  do  what 
was  before  quite  inconceivable.  If  such  power  over  Nature 
rest  with  man,  who  is  to  modifj'  so  largel}^  the  action  of 
natural  laws  and  forces,  by  controlling  them  to  the  extent  1 
of  giving  to  them  new  applications,  whj^  should  it  be  deemed 
impossible  for  an  infinitely  higher  intelligence,  presumably' 
the  Author  of  these  forces,  to  do  the  same?  It  is  altogether 
fallacious  to  suppose  that  an  answer  to  prayer,  sa}',  for 
restoration  of  health,  can  onl}'  be  given  by  direct  interposi- 
tion, in  the  way  of  adding  some  new  force  or  element  to  the 
chain  of  causes  and  effects  by  which  physical  existence  is 
constituted.  If  man  is  capable  of  varying  and  modifying 
the  action  of  these  forces,  so  as  to  bring  out  new  and  dif- 
ferent results  by  giving  to  them  new  directions,  and  if  man 
is  capable  of  receiving  influence  from  God,  why  is  it  absurd 
to  suppose  that  God  ma^^  answer  his  prayers  b^'  suggesting, 
or  leading  to  the  suggestion  to  him,  of  the  use  of  such  means  ; 
as  will  give  the  direction  to  the  natural  forces  that  must 
conduct  to  his  restoration?  In  that  case,  the  answer  to 
prayer  would  give  a  fresh  illustration  of  the  reality  of  the 
connection  of  these   forces,  instead   of  being  an  arbitrary 


170  Tlie  Ejjicacy  of  Prayer. 

violation  of  it.  Tlic  difficulty  does  not  lie  on  the  side  of 
Nature  or  its  order,  then,  but  on  the  side  of  the  relations  ' 
between  God  and  the  human  spirit.  Yet  once  admit  the 
existence  of  these  two,  and  there  is  surely  no  inherent 
improbability  in  the  assumption  that  such  relations  do  exist, 
and  that,  therefore,  man  may  ask,  and  God  may  answer.  It 
a  man  ma}^  ask  a  fellow-man  to  do  something  for  him,  which' 
implies  the  bringing-out  of  a  result  different  from  what  the^ 
chain  of  cause  and  effect  would  do  if  left  to  itself,  why  may 
he  not  ask  God  to  do  so  ? 

I  am  surprised  that  so  acute  a  thinker  as  "  Protagoras" 
seems  to  be  should  fancy  there  is  any  thing  in  his   ai-gument 
from  the  divine  perfection  against  prayer.     "  Has  he  [i.e., 
God]  made  [he  asks  triumphantly]  the  universe  in  such  a 
wa}'  as  to  necessitate   his   occasional   ex'^ra-interference   in*.j 
wa}  s  at  variance  with  the  order  [in  whicli]  he  has  ordained 
[that]  phenomena  should  occur  to  us?"     It  is  altogether  an 
assumption  that  answers  to  pra3cr  necessitate  interference    '  ., 
with  any  ordeii.    As  we  have  seen,  it  is  supposable  prayer 
may  be  answered  through  and  by  means  of  the  natural  order, 
b}'  simply  using  it  in  the  way  man  docs  when  he  bends   the  1 
order  of  phenomena  to  his  own  purposes.     In  regard  to  the 
supposed  argument  from  the  perfection  of  the  divine  plans, 
which  should  require  no  interference,  wh}-  am  I  to  assume 
that  it  is  not  part  of  these-  ver}'  plans  that  certain   results  1 
should  be  brought  about  by  prayer  ?'    If  man  has  been  gifted 
with  such  a  constitution  of  mind  and  cliaracter,  that  praj-er 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  171 

is  needed  to  educate  its  highest  capacities  (and  even  Mr. 
Galton  does  not  deny  the  possibly  beneficial  subjective 
influence  of  prayer),  then  the  perfection  of  his  Creator's 
plan  implies  that  room  has  been  left  for  such  interferences  in  / 
the  wa}'  of  guidance  and  direction  as  may  be  involved  in 
answers  to  prayer.  Nay,  it  is  evident  that  it  may  very  well 
be  that  only  in  and  through  these,  as  in  and  through  the  felt 
necessity  to  worship  on  the  part  of  man,  can  the  best  results, 
both  of  phj'sical  and  hyperphjsical  nature,  be  developed. 
Thus  we  are  led  to  accept  efficacious  prayer>as  included  in 
the  divine  scheme,  without  which  that  would  not  haA^e  been 
what  it  is ;  and  therefore  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  it  as  an 
interference  with  it. 

These  objections  and  answers,  however,  oul}"  touch,  as  it 
were,  the  fringe  of  the  great  question.  That  remains,  as 
hinted  at  the  outset,  —  whether  there  is  nothing  in  the  whole 
universe  but  an  invariable  chain  of  cause-and-effect  connec- 
tions. Yet  what  we  have  already  said  disposes  entirely  of 
Mr.  Gallon's  argument.  On  the  hypothesis  we  have  ven- 
tured upon,  the  interposition  of  the  Deity  to  restore  a  patient 
to  health  cannot,  from  tlie  nature  of  the  act  and  its  instru- 
ments, become  a  matter, of  observation.  The  causes  that 
have  acted  upon  the  ph^'sical  frame  and  constitution  of  the 
patient  are  matter  of  observation,  and  therefore,  we  sa}-,  his 
restoration  is  due  to  them ;  and  the  most  quick-witted  and 
sharp-sighted  of  medical  attendants  could  trace  nothing  but 
them  in  the  sphere  of  sense-perception.     But,  because  that  is 


172  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

so,  it  by  no  means,  of  necessity,  follows  that  the  influence  of 
prayer  is  excluded.  Who  is  able  to  affirm,  in  any  case  what- 
ever, that  certain  suggestions  leading  to  modifications  of 
medical  treatment,  or  certain  minute  mental  and  spiritual 
influences,  —  giving  a  special  direction,  it  may  be,  to  the 
patient's  thoughts,  and  in  the  subtle  association  of  mind  and  ^ 
body,  thereb}^  giving  opportunity-  for  the  vis  medicatrix  in 
the  latter  to  operate,  —  are  not  due  to  Him  without  whose  care 
no  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  ?  We  may  give  full  scope  to 
all  the  eflbrts  of  scientific  men,  and  yet  the  region  in  which 
spiritual  agencies  and  influences  operate  mv^j  not  be  affected 
or  approximated  to  in  the  slightest  measure ;  because, 
unless  all  our  higher  feelings  and  aspirations  are  a  mockery 
and  a  lie,  there  is  a  region,  above  the  sphere  of  cause-and-  '■ 
eflfect  connection,  in  which  free-will  rules.  Not  that  free- 
will implies  the  power  of  altering  the  constitution  of  Nature 
as  a  realm,  or  region,  of  cause-and-eflject  connections ;  for, 
though  it  is  able  to  use  Nature  as  its  instrument,  it  can  only  1 
do  so  by  respecting  its  actual  constitution.  But  free-will  is 
not  arbitrariness.  If  the  higher  philosophy  of  Germany 
have  taught  us  any  thing  at  all,  it  is  that  free-will  and  reason 
are  identical ;  ^h^t  law  and  liberty  are  reconciled  as  being  ' 
one  and  the  same  principle,  viewed  from  different  sides.  It 
is  in  the  nature  of  reason  to  act  rationally  ;  and  it  would  not 
be  to  act  rationallj^  to  ignore  the  law  or  order,  which  is 
the  rational  element  in  the  external  world.  The  highest,  the 
onl}'  true  freedom,  which  is  as  far  apart  as  possible  from  the 


Tlie  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  173 

arbitrariness  of  self-will,  consists  in  such  rational  action  ;  so 
that  there  can  be  no  dread  of  the  recognition  of  freedom 
leading  to  superstition.  The  reason  within  rejoices  in 
recognizing  the  reason  that  is  without.  The  latter,  I  saj^,  is 
seen  in  the  connection  of  cause  and  effect  in  Natui-e  ;  for  the 
constancy  and  universality  of  that  relation  can  only  be 
derived  from  reason,  from  thought.  Hence  the  philosophers 
of  mere  experience  have  been  driven  to  admit  that  cause  / 
and  effect  may  not  hold  good  as  a  universal  law.  It  is  Mr. 
Mill  who  has  been  guilty  of  the  absurditj^  of  averring  the 
possibilit}"  that  there  may  be  regions  in  space  where  the  law 
of  cause  and  effect  no  longer  holds  good,  and  where  two  and 
two  may  not  make  four.  Only  from  thought  can  we  derive 
a  law  of  universal  necessity  in  things.  But,  because  it  is  the 
law  of  reason  that  the  relation  is  universall}'  necessary  in 
things,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  the  same  in  what  is  the 
ruler,  the  master,  the  lord  over  things,  viz.,  in  thought  itself, 
in  the  reason  of  an  intelligent  Being,  which,  as  above  all 
things,  is  capable  of  using  and  moulding  these,  and  the  order 
in  them,  for  its  purposes.  But,  if  we  once  admit  this,  — 
and  unless  by  reducing  man  to  a  machine,  and  depriving 
ourselves  of  all  warrant  for  affirming  even  an  order  in  the 
universe  of  matter  itself,  we  must  admit  so  much,  —  we  can 
no  longer  deny  that  free  intelligences,  from  a  point  outside 
of  and  above  the  chain  of  causes  and  effects  in  Nature,  may 
modif}'  the  action  hy  changing  the  directions  of  the  causes 
and  effects,  and  b}'  introducing  fresh  combinations  of  them. 


1 74  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

And  if  that  be  so  ;  if  man,  as  a  free  intelligence,  can  do  so 
much,  — surely  we  cannot  refuse  a  like  power  to  God,  if  we 
admit  a  God  at  all.  Once  this  point  is  reached,  there  can 
be  no  room  for  a  denial  of  the  possibilit}-  of  the  efficacy  of 
prayer  through  the  influence  of  the  Supreme  Will  upon 
inferior  wills.  The  actuality  of  its  efficac}-  is,  of  course,  a 
further  question  ;  but  the  kind  of  evidence  adduced  by  scep- 
tical physicists  in  questioning,  as  Avell  as  the  kind  of 
evidence  they  require  to  prove  it,  are,  I  think  I  have  shown, 

alike  and  altogether  beside  the  question. 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

H. 

[to  the  editor  of  "the  spectator."] 

Sir, — The  question  as  between  science  and  theology 
with  regard  to  the  eflicac}'  of  praj-er  is  not,  as  3^ou  very 
justly  pointed  out  last  week,  one  which  is  engaging  the 
attention  of  philoso[)hers  alone  :  it  has  a  ver}-  near  interest 
for  men  of  all  classes.  It  is  all  the  more  necessary-,  there- 
fore, that  we  should  keep  ourselves  quite  clear  as  to  what 
the  exact  point  at  issue  is,  and  how  much  is  involved  in  its 
retention  or  renunciation. 

There  are,  as  it  appears  to  me,  two  entirely  different  views 
which  may  be  held  as  to  what  is  meant  when  wo  speak  of 
God  as  granting  a  direct  answer  to  our  prayers.  It  is  most 
important,  I  think,  in  this  controvers}^  that  those  two  views 
should  be  kept  perfectly  distiiict. 

First,  there  is  the  view,  held,  I  suppose,  b}'  a  ver}^  large 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  175 

majority  of  Christian  people,  that  the  man  who  is  in  the 
habit  of  praying  to  God  with  sincerity  and  faith  has  a  right 
to  expect  that  external  circumstances  will  be  ordered  by  the 
Deity  in  direct  answ^  to  his  prayers. 

Secondl}",  there  is  the  view,  held  by  an  increasing  number 
of  thoughtful  Chiistians,  that,  although  God  does  undoubt- 
edly grant  a  direct  answer  to  the  sincere  praj-er,  yet  that  he 
does  so,  not  by  alteration  of  external  circumstances,  but  by 
change  in  the  suppliant's  relation  to  circumstance. 

In  a  word,  both  views  imply  the  belief  in  direct  answer  to 
prayer ;  but,  in  the  one  case,  it  is  regarded  as  being  brought 
about  by  the  alteration  of  circumstances  with  regard  to  the 
suppliant's  position ;  in  the  other,  by  the  alteration  of  the 
suppliant's  position  with  regard  to  external  circumstances. 

Those  who  hold  the  first  view  naturally  base  their  argument 
on  the  literal  acceptation  of  such  words  as  those  in  Matt. 
xxi.,  "All  things  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  prayer,  believ- 
ing, ye  shall  receive,"  and  are  honestly  content  to  explain 
all  failure  in  their  petitions  b^'  assigning  it  to  their  own  want 
of  faith ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  those  who  uphold  the 
second  view,  rejecting  a  literal  interpretation  of  our  Lord's 
words,  citing  his  own  prayer  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane 
(which  certainly,  on  the  first  hypothesis,  must  be  regarded  as 
a  failure)  in  proof  of  their  position,  are  content  to  insist  on 
a  rational  interpretation  of  the  letter,  in  accordance  with  the 
essentidl  spirit  of  Christ's  teaching. 

Practicall}',    of  course,    with    the   majority   of    Christian 


176  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

people,  neitlier  of  these  views  is  held  quite  separately  or 
accurately ;  but  we  are  more  gencrall}'  suffered  to  modify 
one  another  according  to  circumstances.  Such  inaccurac)% 
of  course,  is  natural  enough ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  is,  in 
all  possibility,  owing  to  the  fact  that  such  views  are  not  kept 
quite  independent  one  of  another,  that,  in  some  instances 
(noticeably'  in  the  "  Contemporary "  letter),  science  has 
taken  up  a  mistaken  position.  It  is,  of  course,  with  the  first 
view  only,  that  science  can  claim  any  legitimate  right  to 
express  an  opinion.  As  one  of  your  correspondents  rightly 
said,  "It  is  special  prayer  only,  not  all  prayer,  that  is  really 
obnoxious  to  the  attacks  of  science."  The  assertion  of 
actual  change  in  external  circumstances  offers  at  once  a  1 
definite  field  for  exi3eriment,  and,  therefore,  for  the  operation 
of  scientific  reasoning.  But  with  the  second  view,  at 
present,  at  any  rate,  as  it  appears  to  me,  science  has  simply 
no  power  whatever  to  deal.  How  far,  and  in  what  way, 
man's  emotions  may  be  influenced  or  controlled  by  man's 
own  will,  is  surely  a  question  which  neither  physics  nor 
metaphysics  have  as  yet  at  all  satisfactorily  explained,  much 
less,  therefore,  how  far,  and  in  what  way,  they  may  be  influ- 
enced or  conti-olled  by  God's  will.  And  this  is,  of  course, 
what  is  involved  in  the  acceptation  of  the  second  view. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  first  view,  as  I  have  said, 
science  is  entirely  competent  to  deal ;  and,  however  much 
we  may  be  inclined  to  object  to  the  apparent  spirit  in  which 
the  question  has  been  raised  by  the  proposer  of  the  experi- 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  I'j'j 

mental  prayer-gauge,  I  think  we  must  honestl}^  allow, 
that  not  only  is  the  attitude  of  science  with  regard  to  the 
efficac}-  of  special  prayer  a  reasonable  one,  but  it  is  one  that 
has  actually-,  in  this  respect,  influenced  and  modified  theo- 
logical opinion. 

If  it  should  happen,  as  a  result  of  this  controversy,  that 
the  second  view  of  prayer  should   be  finall}'  accepted  as  the 
most  truly  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  it  ' 
will  not  be  the  first  time  that  theology  has  gone  to  school  to 
science  to  be  tauglit  the  true  meaning  of  its  own  boolvs. 

There  is  a  possible  result  of  this  controversy  which  should 
not  be  lost  sight  of.  To  the  Christian,  the  triumph  of 
science  on  this  question  would  probably  be  nothing  but  pure 
gain :  to  the  churchman,  it  would  necessarily  raise  occasions 
of  some  perplexity.  In  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  there 
are  not  only  prayers  for  special  occasions,  but  prayers  whose 
form  presupposes  that  view,  which,  in  expecting  an  answer, 
demands  a  distinct  change  in  the  course  of  natural  phenom- 
ena. Yet  to  ask  God  to  send  even  five  minutes'  rain,  or 
to  withhold  it,  science  tells  us,  is  to  ask  for  the  disarrange- 
ment of  the  whole  order  of  the  world,  and,  therefore,  to 
demand  a  miracle.  To  any  one,  therefore,  accepting  the 
scientific  conclusion  with  regard  to  what  is  called  the  law  of 
the  conservation  of  energy,  a  form  of  prayer  which  directly 
implies  the  creation  of  new  force  could  not  be  conscientiously 
used.  The  on!}-  legitimate  prayer  to  such  a  person  would  be 
one  which  took  tlie  form  of  a  petition  for  a   change,  not  of 

12 


178  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

external  circumstances,  but  of  the  relation  of  tlie  suppliant 
to  those  circumstances.  I  do  not  see  an}-  intermediate 
position.  But,  if  there  be  not,  surely  the  clergj^  of  the 
Church  of  England,  at  any  rate,  are  in  this  dilemma : 
either  they  must  accept  that  form  of  prayer  which  practically 
implies  the  continual  working  of  miracles,  or  there  must 
remain  a  considerable  portion  of  that  book  which  it  is  their 
duty  to  use  in  their  public  ministrations,  to  whicli  they  can- 
not give  an  unfeigned  or  honest  assent.  Surely  a  question 
is  here  raised,  infinitely  wider  and  more  far-reaching  than 
any  that  has  resulted  in  the  assertion  that  thei'c  must 
necesarily  be  a  schism  in  the  Church,  if  the  reading  of  the 
Athansian  Creed  is  to  be  left  to  the  option  of  individual 
clerg3men. 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

Charles  "W.  Stdbbs. 
Granborough  Vicarage,  Bucks. 

[to  the  editor  of  "  THE  SPECTATOR."] 

Sir, — Your  article  on  "The  Piifficacy  of  Prayer"  has 
called  forth  so  many  letters,  that  I  can  hardly  expect 
you  to  find  room  for  mine.  If  an}'  of  jour  readers  were 
capable  of  supposing  that  the  subject  is  discussed  "by 
philosophers  onl}',"  they  must  be  undeceived  by  this  time. 
In  /'act,  no  question  is  more  continually  debated  in  conver- 
sation b3"_  persons  of  all  shades  of  belief  and  all  degrees 
of  knowledge  ;  and  many  nuist  have  been  as  grateful  to  you 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  1 79 

as  myself  for  so   good   an    opportunity  of  discussion,  and 
especially  for  the  tone  of  your  own  article. 

I  cannot  but  think  that  many  (though  not  all)  of  the 
difficulties  the  question  seems  to  involve  are  occasioned  by  a 
strange  self-deceit.  Do  mam-  persons  really  believe  —  not 
only  think  they  ought  to  do  so,  but  truly  believe  —  that  they 
can  alter  the  intentions  of  the  Most  High  by  their  entreaties  ? 
K  so,  how  dare  they  ever  open  their  lips  to  ask  for  any 
earthly  boon  whatever  ?  How  dare  they  ask  for  the  life  of 
their  dearest  friend,  knowing,  as  they  must,  that  God  only 
can  tell  whether  such  a  favor  is  not  the  most  utter  cruelty? 
Who  that  really  had  no  doubt  of  the  result  would  ask  for 
worldly  prosperity  or  success ;  na^',  who  would  dare  to 
pray  for  what  he  believed  to  be  the  most  ti'uly  religious 
object?  I  cannot  believe  that  any  one  would  really  incur 
so  fearful  a  responsibility.  All  the  efforts  that  we  make 
towards  an  object  will,  as  we  trust,  be  mercifully  frustrated, 
if  God  should  see  that  their  success  is  undesirable ;  but  to 
expect  him  to  change  from  his  plans  to  ours,  at  our  request, 
would  truly  be  to  believe,  that,  when  we  asked  bread,  he 
would  give  us  a  stone.  As  to  the  question  of  fact,  it  seems 
to  me  decided,  as  far  as  visible  results  go,  by  one  circum- 
stance. There  is  probably  no  purer  or  more  fervent  praj-er 
offered  on  earth  than  the  prayer  of  a  mother  that  her  son 
may  grow  up  a  good  man :  we  can  conceive  no  reason  whj'^ 
it  should  fail ;  but  the  son  does  not  always  grow  up  good. 
God  forbid  that  we  should  therefore  suppose  her  prayer  is 


i8o  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

in  vain !  but  certainly  it  does  not  produce  a  visible  answer, 
such  as  a  large  class  of  persons  think  they  expect. 

The  truth  I  believe  to  i»e  that  man^^  persons  have  no  con- 
ception of  praj'cr,  except  as  a  request  for  some  specified 
favor.  They  think,  truly,  that  God  has  promised  to  hear 
prayer :  therefore  they  feel  bound  to  believe  that  he  will 
grant  the  favor.  Surely  this  is  not  what  prayer  means.  It 
is  not  the  intercourse  an  earthly  father  desires  with  his 
children.  He  would  have  them  speak  to  him  of  every  thing, 
—  their  joj'S  and  sorrows,  their  faults  and  resolutions,  no 
doubt,  also,  their  fears  and  wishes ;  but  he  would  not  have 
them  speak  only  when  something  was  to  be  got,  or  suppose 
him  to  be  inattentive  to  them,  unless  he  gave  them  every 
thing  they  asked.  So  we  should  make  our  praters  rather 
communion  than  entreaty.  We  should  tell  our  Father  in 
heaven  all  that  we  feel,  or  fear,  or  wish.  If  it  is  important 
to  us,  we  know  he  will  not  think  it  too  trifling  for  him  to 
hear ;  but  to  suppose  that  the  getting  or  not  getting  a  special 
boon  is  the  test  of  his  existence,  or  his  love,  is  a  great  and 
unhappy  mistake. 

It  may  be  said,  that,  on  this  view,  we  cannot  have  evidence 
from  the  result  of  our  prayers.  We  cannot ;  nor  is  it  to  be 
expected  that  we  should,  —  such  evidence,  at  least,  as  can 
be  convincing  to  another  person.  The  theory  of  visible  and 
immediate  answ^ers  raises  at  least  as  many  difficulties  as  it 
removes.  But  we  who  already  believe  sliall  find,  that,  the 
more  true  communion  we  have  with  God,  the  more  he  be- 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  i8i 

comes  au  actual  living  Being  to  our  feeling  and  conviction, 

not  a  mere  force  to  be  moved,  or  not  moved,  as  the  case 

may  be,  by  another  force. 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

E. 

[to  the  editor  of  "  TirE  SPECTATOR."] 

SiK,  —  If  3'our  correspondent  "Protagoras"  finds  "the 
doctrine  of  prayer,  as  popularly  held,"  actually  inter- 
fering with  sanitary  reforms  in  his  own  town,  he  may  be 
right  to  protest ;  but  he  should  not  assume  that  scientific 
investigations  and  exposure  of  "  popular"  notions  of  this  or 
any  other  subject  are  the  same  thing.  He  should  examine 
and  test  the  language  of  the  great  thinkers  —  say,  such  men 
as  Maurice  and  Bunsen  —  who  have  strictly  and  habitually 
asked  themselves  what  they  meant  by  prayer,  and  who  did, 
as  the  result  of  such  inquir}^,  continue  to  believe  that  it  had 
a  meaning,  and  was  no  mere  popular  superstition.  He 
would  then  find  that  the  question  is  one  of  premises  ;  that  its 
"  scientific  "  solution  depends  entirely  on  the  "  scientific  " 
solution  of  the  previous  questions,  —  What  is  God?  what  is  i 
ihe  relation  of  man  to  God  ?     Prayer  ma^'  be  the  utterance  of 

"All  infant  crying  in  the  uiglit, 
An  infant  crying  for  tbe  light, 
And  with  no  language  Ijut  a  cr^-." 

But  whether  that  ciy  has  a  meaning,  depends  on  whether, 
as  a  fact,  that  child  "  crying,  knows  his  father  near." 
Or  if  ^ve  contemplate  God  as  a  Creator  and  Sovereign,  as 
well    as   a   Father,    prayer   may    still   have    a    "scientific" 


1 82  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

reality,  if  we  believe  —  as  many  learned  and  accurate 
thinkers  have  believed,  after  a  life-long  investigation  of 
the  subject  —  that  the  world  has  been  created,  and  is 
actually  governed,  by  a  God.  Such  a  belief  no  more 
necessarily  involves  a  superstitious  belief  in  miraculous 
interference  with  the  laws  of  Nature  than  does  the  belief 
that  the  personal  guidance  and  control  which  Mr.  Brassey 
exercised  over  his  agents,  contractors,  and  workmen,  was 
essential  to  the  making  of  his  railways,  implies  that  every ' 
act  of  such  contract  of  guidance  was  a  miracle  ;  or  that 
there  is  a  conceivable,  an  actual,  guidance  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  England  by  Mr.  Gladstone,  which  neither,  on  the 
one  hand,  leaves  the  State  to  work  "by  itself  without  any 
interference,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  interferes  by  miracle. 
Why  is  the  personal  guidance  of  the  machinery  of  the 
universe  by  God  less  conceivable  than  the  government  of 
certain  portions  of  it  by  men  ?  And  why  should  not  God 
recognize  conditions  under  which  men  may  act  with  God  in 
carrying  on  that  government  ?  Pi'ayer  has  a  scientific  basis 
for  those  who  believe  in  an  actual  relationship  between  God 
and  man,  however  true  it  may  be  that  many  popular  super- 
stitions have  been  raised  on  that  basis.  And,  if  "  Pro- 
tagoras "  will  investigate  the  question  scientifically,  he  must 
begin  with  that  prc\ious  question  which  underlies  it.  Tliere 
is  no  real  argument  between  men  who  are  not  agreed  on  \ 
their  principles. 

I  am,  sir,  &c.,  E.  D.  W. 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  183 

[to  the  editor  of  "  THE  SPECTATOR."] 

Sir,  —  I  have  read  with  much  interest  the  letters  in  3-our 
paper  upon  the  efficacy  of  pra3-er.  I  now  venture  to 
intrude  the  few  following  remarks  upon  that  subject,  as  it 
appears  to  me  that  3'our  correspondents  have  entirely'  over- 
looked, or  not  considered,  the  points  to  which  I  wish  to  draw 
attention. 

The  apparent  answering  of  any  prayer  is  no  proof  that  it 
has  received  the  special  attention  of  the  Almight}-.  I  be- 
lieve this  will  be  rendered  clear  by  the  following  observa- 
tions :  (1.)  The  existence  of  a  God  is  considered  admitted, 
and  that  his  attributes  are  omnipotence,  omnipresence,  and 
omniscience,  infinite  love,  and  infinite  perfection.  (2.)  As 
all  things  emanate  from  him,  he  being  perfection  itself, 
it  follows  that  his  works  must  be  perfect.  Putting  aside  all 
considerations  of  the  morality  of  man  prayinfif  to  infinite 
Perfection  to  alter  creation^  for  his  especial  benefit  and  tem- 
porary necessity',  is  it  possible  for  the  Almighty  to  change 
whatts?  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  the  attributes  of 
God  j9rot"e  that  alteration  of  his  plans  is  impossible,  because 
to  presume  the  possibility'  of  change  is  at  once  den3'ing  the 
infinite  perfection  of  the  Almight3'.  (3.)  Can  man,  remem- 
bering alwa3's  the  attributes  of  God,  den3',  that,  when  a 
pra3'er  has  presumabl3'  been  answered,  the  same  results 
would  not  have  followed,  had  the  prayer  never  been  uttered? 
If  he  is  infinite  perfection,  he  must  have  created  all  that  is 


184  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer, 

requisite  for  man  ;  and  to  request  him  to  provide  other  than 
that  which  exists  implies  a  complete  want  of  faith  in  his 
eternal  providence.  Of  course,  if  these  attributes  should  be 
denied,  God  is  at  once  reduced  to  the  position  of  a  more  or 
less  powerful,  and  more  or  less  beneficent  Being,  according 
to  the  ideal  of  any  individual. 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

J.  SiLVANUS. 

THE    EFFICACY    OF    PRAYER. 

We  have  before  us  a  very  curious  proof  of  the  interest 
taken  by  the  educated  and  semi-educated  class  in  the 
subject  of  the  efflcac}'  of  prayer.  It  is  a  heap  of  letters, 
all  about  praj-er,  sent  us  for  publication  in  two  da3's,  which 
would  fill,  as  nearly  as  we  can  calculate,  sixteen  pages  of 
this  journal.  One  or  two  of  them,  we  are  bound  to  say,  are 
mere  sermons  ;  but  the  majority  are  attempts,  sometimes  by 
half-educated  men,  at  a  frank  and  close  reasoning-out  of  the 
matter.  As  "The  Spectator,"  though  deeply  interested  in 
theological  questions,  is  not  specially  devoted  to  theologj^, 
and  is  desirous  of  treating  it  from  the  lay  observer's  point 
of  view,  we  must  refrain  from  publishing  more  than  a  selec- 
tion from  this  mass,  and  can  hardly  hope  that  the  excluded 
will  approve,  or  understand,  the  principle  upon  Avhicli  the 
selection  has  been  made.  The  majority  of  the  letters  before 
us  are  written,  as  was  natural,  from  the  supernatural  side ; 
but   a  great  man}-  of  them  bear  trace  of  a  feeling  we  had 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  185 

scarcely  expected  to  find,  —  a  strong  desire  on  the  part  of 
man)'  persons  who  believe  in  a  sentient  God,  and  of  some 
who  are  apparently  Christians,  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulties 
of  the  subject  by  reducing,  without  denj'ing,  the  efficacy  of  ' 
prayer.  The}^  seem  to  be  aware  of  the  direct  connection 
between  the  question  of  the  possibility  of  an  answer  to  sup- 
plication, and  the  existence  of  a  sentient  Being  ruling  the 
universe,  and  want  to  retain  prayer  as  a  spiritual  exercise, 
but  to  find  for  it  another  and  sufficient  spiritual  use.  Of 
course,  they  are  in  part  successful.  It  is  quite  true,  as  one 
correspondent  suggests,  that  the  emotion  of  prayerfulness,  or 
state  of  being  praj-erful,  is,  when  sincere,  beneficial ;  and 
true  also  —  tliough  not,  we  fear,  absolutely  true  in  all  cases 
and  with  all  men  —  that  the  habit  of  prayer,  even  when 
ineffectual,  would  tend  to  produce  a  habit  of  submissiveness  ' 
to  the  divine  Will,  which  might  be  the  very  highest  attitude 
of  the  human  soul.  It  is  also  true  that  the  majority  of 
believers  have  a  belief  as  strong  as  an  instinct,  that,  in  pra}'- 
ing,  they  are  obeying  the  will  of  God,  —  "co-operating" 
with  him,  as  one  clergyman  expresses  it,  —  and  therefore 
renewing  their  moral  vigor ;  and  truest  of  all,  that,  without  7 
prajer,  there  can  be  no  sense  of  individual  communion  with 
God,  the  point  which  Canon  Liddon,  in  his  collection  of  lec- 
tures just  published,  seems  disposed  to  press  so  strongly. 
But  then  it  is  also  true,  that  if  praj-er  is  never  answered, 
and  never  can  be  answered,  and  we  know  that  it  never  is  or 
can  be,  this  becomes  a  tainted  method  of  spiritual  exercise, 


1 86  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

tainted  with  conscious  unreality  and  sham.  A  prayer  is 
more  than  a  monologue  in  the  vocative  case  ;  and  to  join  in 
a  long  series  of  supplications,  or  to  make  supplication  for 
one's  self,  while  fully  confident  that  no  supplication  will  be 
heard  or  attended  to,  is  a  great  deal  too  much  like  Ipng 
solemnly. 

Moreover,  it  seems  to  us  that  most  of  these  arguments  are 
beside  the  point  at  issue,  certainly  beside  that  one  raised 
in  the  publications  with  which  the  controversy  commenced. 
The  physicists  are  not  trying  to  assert  that  prayer,  or  any  ' 
other  mental  operation,  nxay  not  be  attended  with  benefit  of 
some  kind, — just  as  the  lamb's  prayer,  the  bleat,  may,  in 
some  unknown  wa}',  tend  to  relieve  its  suffering,  —  but  to 
.  show  that  to  expect  an  answer  is  unreasonable  to  absurdity  ; 
is  to  expect  that  the  continuit}'  of  cause  and  effect  —  which, 
as  far  as  observation  extends,  is  never  broken,  and,  as  they 
maintain,  never  can  be  broken  —  shall  be  violated  for  the 
sake  of  an  individual.  This  is  clearly  the  argument  upon' 
which  the  whole  discussion  turns,  and  the  one  which  impresses 
itself  even  upon  the  orthodox  ;  for  it  is  this  which,  in  all  their 
solutions,  they  are  endeavoring  —  of  course  quite  uncon- 
sciously—  to  evade.  "We  cannot  see  why  they  should  evade 
it,  or  why  —  admitting  fully  and  earnestl}',  as  we  have 
throughout  tried  to  do,  the  magnitude  of  the  intellectual 
difficulties  which  surround  the  whole  subject  —  they  should 
feel  more  difficulty  in  ascribing  to  God  this  power,  than,  say, 
the  power  of  creation,  or  conversion,  or  any  other  of  the 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  187 

actions  which  we  habitually,  and,  as  we  think,  on  good  evi- 
dence, ascribe  to  the  divine  Will.  If  he  exists  at  all,  —  and 
we  are  just  now  addressing  those  who  admit  that  cardinal 
proposition,  —  he  must  have  some  power;  and  the  difficulty 
of  comprehending  or  defining  the  limits  of  that  power  is  not 
greater  in  one  case  than  in  another.  Our  Buckinghamshire 
correspondent,  for  example,  seems  to  be  greatly  perplexed 
by  the  pra^-er  for  rain,  and  suggests,  though  he  does  not 
quite  sa}',  that  this,  at  all  events,  must  be  ineffectual. 
Why  ?  That  it  would  usually  be  ineffectual  may  be  granted 
at  once ;  for  it  would  be  nine  times  out  of  ten  one  of  those 
selfishly  stupid  prayers,  which  no  Being  at  once  good  and 
wise  could  proper!}'  be  expected  to  grant.  For  why,  on  any 
theory  of  his  love,  should  he  grant  John's  desire,  when  to 
grant  it  is  to  refuse  Joseph's?  But  we  could  imagine  a 
tenth  time,  a  time  of  drought  in  a  tropical  land,  when  the 
heavens  were  as  brass,  and  the  earth  as  iron,  and  all  hearts 
and  brains  absorbed  in  the  desire  of  rain  till  the  spiritual 
life  was  in  danger  of  being  overmastered  as  by  a  lunacy, 
when  the  selfish  supplication  might  become  a  true  and  an 
unselfish,  and  even  a  spiritual  prayer  ;  and  why  should  it  not 
be  answered  then  ?  To  saj-  it  mrhjlit  not  be  is  reasonable  ; 
for  to  say  that  God  knows  best  whether  it  is  better  for  his 
usual  modes  of  action  to  be  supplemented  by  a  new  one,  or 
for  the  people  of  Orissa  to  perish,  is  not  to  ascribe  to  him 
an}'  incredible  degree  of  wisdom, — little  more  than  the  wis- 
dom of  a  great  general  who  lets  a  regiment  perish  that  a 


1 88  The  Ffficacy  of  Prayer. 

people  may  be  free  ;  but  to  say  that  he  could  not  answer  it 
is,  at  all  events,  to  deny  him  creative  power,  to  go  infinitely 
further  than  a  very  strong  physicist,  Dr.  Carpenter,  is,  in 
his  inaugural  address  to  the  British  Association,  prepared 
to  go.  He,  unless  we  mistake  him  in  a  curious  way,  holds 
that  the  final  end  of  physical  research  may  be,  and  probabl}^ 
will  be,  the  discovery  that  a  mind  was  the  final  cause  ;  and, 
if  it  can  be  the  cause  of  matter,  why  not  of  the  phenomena 
of  matter?  It  may  be  terribly  diflScult  for  the  mind  to  con- 
ceive of  God  creating  a  cloud,  or  modifying  by  volition  the 
physical  conditions  of  a  sick  man  ;  but  it  is  not  more  diflScult 
than  to  conceive  his  creating  any  thing  at  all  which  did  not 
exist  before,  or  changing  the  operations  of  a  man's  mind  by 
invisible  agency,  or  issuing  the  law  according  to  which,  even 
on  Dr.  Carpenter's  apparent  theory.  Nature  maintains  her 
immutability'.  That  legislation  surely  is  a  high  effort  of 
absolutism.  That  is  no  answer  to  Dr.  Tyndall,  or  the  writer 
he  edits,  or  to  Mr.  Galton  ;  but  it  seems  to  us  a  complete 
answer  to  any  one  who  accepts  a  sentient  Creator,  even 
though  he  thinks,  in  defiance  of  common  justice,  that  a 
creator  ma}^  create,  yet  be  irresponsible  to  himself  for  the 
fate  of  the  created.  Why  God  should  so  exert  his  authority 
at  the  request  of  a  man  is  a  different  matter,  depending  on 
the  proof  that  tlie  creative  mind  must  establish,  and  does 
establish,  relations  with  his  creatures,  which,  in  some  way, 
must  be  sympathetic  or  beneficent ;  but  that  he  can  is 
included  in  the  argument   that  he  is  Creator.     {The   diflS- 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  189 

cultj'  of  miracle  —  that  is,  of  the  intervention  of  a  power 
whose  laws  we  have  not  ascertained — is  but  part  of  the 
difficulty  of  conceiving  a  creating  Being  at  all.^  No  conceiv- 
able miracle  is  equal  to  that  implied  in  the  words  Longinus 
thought  so  sublime  :  "  And  God  said,  '  Let  light  be.'  Light 
was."  It  is  not  more  difficult  to  conceive  that  God  blighted 
a  fig-tree,  man  needing  that  particular  lesson,  than  to  con- 
ceive that  he  issued  and  maintains  a  law,  under  which  all 
fig-trees,  under  certain  conditions,  must  be  blighted.  Mr. 
Silvanus's  retort,  that  the  fig-tree  could  not  be  blighted 
except  under  the  conditions,  because  departure  from  the 
conditions  would  implj'  their  imperfection,  which,  they  being 
God's  work,  is  impossible,  is  either  no  retort  at  all,  or  is 
only  a  restatement  of  the  old  difficulty  of  free-will.  If 
God  cannot  change  aught  of  his  eternal  law,  he  is  not  free,  ' 
is  more  bound  than  me.  But  why  is  it  incredible  that  one  of 
the  eternal  conditions  of  matter  should  be  amenability  to 
the  volition,  which,  on  Mr.  Silvanus's  theory,  created  it? 
A  correspondent  in  another  page  has  put  this  point,  as  we 
think  unanswerably :  "  In  regard  to  the  supposed  argument 
from  the  perfection  of  the  divine  plans,  which  should  require 
no  interference,  wh}-  am  I  to  assume  that  it  is  not  part  of 
these  ver}^  plans  that  certain  results  should  be  brought  about 
h]}  prayer  ?  If  man  has  been  gifted  with  such  a  constitution 
of  mind  and  character,  that  prayer  is  needed  to  educate  its 
higliest  capacities,  —  and  even  Mr.  Galton  does  not  deny  the 
possibly  beneficial  subjective  influence  of  prayer,  —  then  the 


190  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

perfection  of  his  Creator's  plan  implies  that  room  has  been 
left  for  such  interferences,  in  the  way  of  guidance  and  direc- 
tion, as  may  be  involved  in  answers  to  pra3'er.  Na^-,  it  is 
evident  that  it  may  very  well  be  that  onl}-  in  and  through 
these,  as  in  uud  through  the  felt  necessity  to  worship  on  the 
part  of  man,  can  the  best  results,  both  of  physical  and 
h}'perphysical  nature,  be  developed."  At  all  events,  it  can- 
not bo  fair  to  accept  the  power  of  God  to  create,  and  dony 
his  power  to  modify  his  creation.  Nor,  so  far  as  we  can 
see,  is  it  fair  to  talk  of  the  magnitude  of  any  effort  of  the 
supreme  volition.  We  do  not  know  what  is  great  or  little  to 
God  ;  do  not  even  know,  that,  in  his  creative  work,  there  can 
be  inequality  of  elfort. 

We  are  most  anxious  not  to  introduce  any  reference  to 
Scripture,  which,  to  most  of  our  opponents,  would  seem 
beside  the  mark,  and,  to  some,  the  taking  of  an  unfair 
advantage ;  but  it  has  interested  us  to  notice  that  the 
"refusal"  of  Christ's  prayer  in  Gethsemane  has,  in  some 
minds,  definitely  decreased  the  idea  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer. 
Mr.  Stubbs  mentions  this ;  and  accidentally  another  corre- 
spondent asks  if  it  is  not  proof  against  the  Orthodox  view  ; 
and  a  third  quotes  it  as  proof  positive  that  earnestness  is  no 
guaranty  for  acceptance.  As  Christ  praj-cd  onl}-  as  a  iuunan 
being,  as  his  prayer  was  that  God's  will  might  be  done,  and 
as  his  praj^er  in  his  agonj^  was  contrary  to  the  perpetual 
interest  of  all  mankind,  the  illustration  seems  a  weak  one  ; 
but  we  want  to  ask  why  it  is  so  universally  assei-ted  that  tlio 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  191 

prayer  was  rejected?  The  prayer  was  not  to  be  relieved 
from  death,  but  from  the  cup  of  bitterness  ;  and  it  seems  to 
us,  accepting,  of  course,  the  literal  accuracy  of  the  record, 
that  the  narrative  may  mean  that  it  was  answered  ;  that  the 
certnint}'  which  overcomes  that  bitterness  had  arrived  when 
he  conveyed  the  assurance  to  the  penitent  thief,  tliough  it 
was  again  lost  in  physical  agony;  that  in  the  words,  "It 
is  finished,"  was  announced  a  new  and  full  conception  of 
the  whole  plan  of  his  life,  which  must  have  extinguished  for- 
ever all  that  was  of  bitterness  in  the  cup.  That  is,  perhaps, 
but  a  "  view;  "  but  it  is  at  least  sufficiently  borne  out  to 
deprive  an  argument  upon  which  too  much  stress  is  laid  by 
manj'  minds  of  its  opei'ative  force.! 


THE  EFFICACY  OF  PRAYER. 

[to  the  editor  of  "tiie  spectator."] 
Sir,  —  I  thank  j'ou  for  having  opened  your  columns  to 
discussion  upon  the  efficacy  of  praj-er,  and  to  have  so 
well  acted  as  moderator,  in  a  matter  which  deeply  touches 
the  feelings  of  many  men,  as  to  have  enabled  the  discussion 
to  be  carried  on  with  mutual  forbearance  and  respect  on  the 
part  of  the  disputants. 

My  object  in  writing  now  is  to  endeavor  to  confine  the  dis- 
cussion to  what  I  conceive  to  be  strategic  points,  though  they 
are  commonlj-  neglected,  and  are  usually  but  indiiectly 
aimed  at,  b}"  jour  numerous  correspondents.  Those  vrho 
den}'  the  right  of  appeal  to  statistical  inquiries  upon  the  effi- 


192  The  Ejjlcacii  of  Prayer. 

cacy  of  prayer  assume  implicitly  two  propositions,  both  of 
which  I  gainsay,  and  which  I  will  now  explicitly  state. 
They  assert,  first,  that  the  desire  to  pray  is  intuitive  to 
man  (let  the  word  pass,  for  the  moment)  ;  secondlj'  that 
the  cogenc}'  of  intuition  is  greater  than  of  observation.  I 
maintain,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  desire  to  pra}-  is  not 
intuitive,  and,  even  if  it  were,  that  the  cogenc}'  of  intuition 
is  less  than  that  of  observation.  As  regards  the  meaning  I 
assign  in  this  letter  to  "intuitive  perceptions,"  I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  accept  the  widest  definition  my  adversaries 
can  reasonably  desire.  I  do  not  wish  to  haggle  about  nar- 
rowing the  limit :  it  is  in  no  way  necessar}^  to  my  argument 
that  I  should  do  so,  therefore  I  will  concede  enormously,  and  ' 
will  allow  that  all  perceptions  or  feelings  strongly  developed 
in  the  average  man  may  be  reckoned  as  intuitive  to  the 
human  race.  Now,  I  assert  that  the  desire  for  prayer  is  not 
one  of  these  feelings,  but  that  it  is  an  artificial  creation  of  i 
theologians  ;  also  that  the  class  of  similar  feelings  which  are 
intuitive  are  such  as  obedience  to  dreams,  incantations,  and 
witchcraft,  fear  of  the  evil  eye,  belief  in  demoniacal  posses- 
sions, exorcising,  coercion  of  an  angry  spirit  by  some  tom- 
tom ceremony,  fetish-worship,  and  taboo.  The  savage  does 
not  pray  by  natural  inclination  ;\but  the  missionary  teaches  ) 
him  to  pray ;  and  as,  at  the  same  time,  he  preaches  to  him 
on  the  existence  of  a  God  who  listens  to  prayer,  precept  to 
pra}^  is  a  logical  sequence  of  that  instruction.  The  savage 
believes  in  what  the  missionary  tells  him,  because  the  mis- 


The  Efficacy  of  Frayer.  193 

sionary  is  avowedly  a  more  instructed  man  than  himself  in 
many  things,  and  he  is  certainly  in  earnest :  therefore  the 
missionary's  deit}^  is  accepted  bj'  the  savage,  and  the  con- 
verted heathen  is  taught  to  pray. 

In  modern  civilization,  the  action  of  the  mother  upon  the 
belief  and  habit  of  the  child  resembles,  in  man}"  respects,  that 
of  the  missionary  upon  those  of  the  savage.  She  tells  him 
loving  tales  about  God's  watchful  jare,  and  of  his  answers 
to  those  who  kneel  and  speak  to  him  ;  and  she  joins  his  little 
hands  together,  and  sets  him  on  his  knees,  and  teaches  him, 
with  caressing  earnestness,  to  pray  for  temporal  blessings, 
from  the  very  dawn  of  his  intelligence.  What  wonder  that 
this  nursery-  theology  should  pervade  his  life,  and  that  it 
should  be  so  associated  with  his  deepest  feelings  that  he 
should  at  last  believe  it  to  have  been  intuitive?  His  belief 
is  confirmed  by  the  events  of  his  after-life  ;  for,  on  all  its 
solemn  occasions,  it  is  the  habit  for  the  clergyman  to  step 
in,  and  to  consecrate  them  by  prajer.  He  is  present  by  the 
death-bed,  by  the  marriage-altar,  and  by  the  baptismal  font ; 
he  usuall}"  superintends  earl}'^  instruction ;  and  he  has  by 
custom  the  opportunity  and  unrestrained  right  of  preaching 
and  pra^'ing  before  large  congregations  on  every  seventh  da}-. 
Again  I  ask,  What  wonder  is  it  that  a  habit  of  prayer,  and  a 
sense  of  its  necessity,  should  be  formed,  which  seem,  until 
their  sources  have  been  anal3-z;ed,  to  be  one  of  primeval 
origin  ? 

My  second  point  is  easily  disposed  of ;  namely,  that,  even 

13 


194  ^^'^^  EffLcacij  of  Prayer. 

if  the  belief  in  praj-er  were  intuitive,  its  cogency  ought  to 
be  considered  inferior  to  that  which  is  prompted  by  the 
observation  of  facts.  My  argument  is  this,  —  I  do  not  care 
to  go  into  the  metaphysics  of  the  matter,  but  would  simply 
point  out  that  the  ver^-  theologians  who  insist  on  the  supreme 
authorit}^  of  religious  intuition  are  precisely  the  men  who 
have  already-  most  prominently  denied  it  in  practice.  Their 
predecessors  at  the  time  of  the  Chiistian  era,  and  for  hun- 
dreds of  years  subsequently,  nay,  even  men  of  the  present 
time  in  Catholic  countries,  have  believed  in  the  divine  origin 
of  dreams  and  auguries,  in  ordeal  and  in  duel,  in  lots  after 
prayer,  in  blessing  and  in  cursings,  in  witchcraft,  in  mirac- 
ulous cures,  in  demoniacal  possessions,  and  in  exorcisms. 
All  this  the  theologians  of  the  present  English  Church  have 
quietly  suppressed  as  of  "  superstitious "  origin.  They 
also  complacently'  ignore  that  their  predecessors  have  been 
beaten  along  their  whole  line  by  statistical  inquiries  ;  for  it  is 
1)3'  more  or  less  unconscious  use  of  statistics  that  the  belief 
in  ordeal,  duel,  augur} ,  and  the  rest,  has  disappeai'cd  ;  and, 
now  that  theologians  are  summoned  on  statistical  grounds 
to  surrender  a  belief  which  I  have  shown  to  have  much 
loss  claim  to  be  considered  as  intuitive,  they  s*nrt  with 
naive  indignation,  as  at  a  previously  unheard-of  and  most 
unreasonable  interference.  You  will  observe  that  the  views 
advanced  in  this  letter  could  be.  much  more  strongly-  enforced 
by  an  elaborate  essay;  but  "sapient!  verbum  sat,"  and  I 
write  concisely,  at  the  risk  of  wealieniug  my  case,  in  order 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  195 

to  induce  those  who  may  answer  me  in  your  columns  to  be 
equally  concise  and  pointed. 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

Francis  Galton. 

THE  EFFICACY  OF  PRAYER. 

[to  the  editor  of  "  THE  SPECTATOR."] 

Sir,  —  Mr.  Gallon's  interesting  letter  in  your  paper  of 
yesterday  induces  me  to  trouble  you  with  a  few  observa- 
tions in  reply  to  that  gentleman,  and  on  the  subject  gener- 
all}'.  With  reference  to  your  correspondent's  first  point, 
must  it  not  be  conceded,  that,  even  though  prayer  be  not 
intuitive,  it  ma^^  be  effective  of  its  proper  purposes  ?  Hardly 
any  one  would  maintain  that  the  multiplication-table  or  the 
47lh  proposition  of  the  first  book  of  Euclid  come  to  man 
intuitively ;  but  yet  they  are  very  effective  means  for  the 
accomplishing  of  certain  ends.  Similarly,  pra^-er  ma}'  be 
eflScacious,  even  though  it  be,  as  Mr.  Galton  thinks,  the  / 
result  of  instruction,  and  not  of  intuition. 

If  this  be  so,  one  need  not,  in  this  connection,  examine 
your  correspondent's  other  point,  touching  the  comparative 
cogency  of  intuition  and  observation.  But  now,  to  come  to 
the  great  question  of  the  efficacy  of  pra^-er,  and  to  the  chal- 
lenge to  have  a  ward  in  some  hospital  set  apart  as  a  praj-er- 
test. 

So  far  as  one  prays  to  achieve  some  purpose  one's  self,  it 
may  probably  be  assumed,  and  will  scarcely  be  questioned, 


196  The  Efficacy  of  Praijcr. 

that  earnest  desires,  reverently  stated  before  God  as  even  a 
supposed  friend,  "will  be  purified  of  some  unattainable  and 
unreasonable  cravings ;  and  the  same  process  of  stating 
desires  to  one's  God  will  strengthen  resolution,  and  will 
insure  a  wiser  selection  of  means  for  attaining  the  wished- 
for  end.  To  this  extent,  then,  perhaps,  it  ma}-  be  allowed 
that  prajer  is  efBcacious. 

But  then  there  is  intercessory  prayer.  What  of  it?  May 
we  not  sa}',  that  so  far  as  it  is  employed  in  the  manner 
sketched  above,  and  so  far  as  it  sets  the  petitioners  to  work 
devising  and  executing  the  best  methods  for  superinducing 
health  and  happiness  and  good  morals  for  those  on  whose 
behalf  supplications  are  made,  to  this  extent  praj'cr  is  effica- 
cious? But  limits  to  its  effectiveness  become  more  and 
more  perceptible.  With  reference  to  good  wishes  before 
Heaven,  for  ourselves  and  for  oar  neighbors,  the  poet's 
words  are  in  no  small  measure  true  :  — 

"And  all  your  ^^e^vs  may  come  to  nought 
"When  every  nerve  is  strained." 

So,  again,  but  more  obviously-  still,  when  prayers  are  made 
for  rain,  or  dr}-  weather,  or  success  in  war,  or  any  such 
matter,  opposing  entreaties  arc  morall}-  certain  to  be 
addressed  to  the  Deit}- ;  and  both  sets  of  desires  cannot  be 
accomplished  at  the  same  time  and  place ;  so  that,  suppos- 
ing, as  we  ma}',  each  petition  to  come  from  equally  acceptable 
hearts,  here  is  another  source  of  limitations  to  the  eflScac3'of 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  197 

prayer.  Something  might  be  urged  to  the  effect  that  the 
pra3ang  farmer  will  be  most  provident  in  varying  his  crops, 
and  doing  the  best  that  can  be  done  to  make  haj^  while  the 
sun  shines.  But  those  who  doubt  the  efficacy  of  prayer 
would  reph',  that  it  is  the  wisdom,  and  not  the  piety,  of  the 
agriculturist,  that  secures  his  crop  ;  or  the  sternness,  and  not 
the  religion,  of  the  Cromwellian,  that  wins  the  battle. 

Besides,  if  we  pass  from  prayer  generally,  to  Christian 
praj'er  in  particular,  must  not  the  widest  hopes  and  precepts 
and  promises  of  the  New  Testament  be  interpreted  and  lim- 
ited by  the  fact  that  the  Master  himself,  when  he  pra^^ed, 
repeatedly  and  with  intensest  earnestness,  for  deliverance 
from  a  death  of  anguish  and  ignominy  to  himself  accompa- 
nied b}'  wretched  sin  in  those  around  him,  only  praj-ed  con- 
ditionall}' :  "  If  it  be  possible  ;"  "  nevertheless,  not  my  will, 
but  thine  be  done"?  Surel}- Christian  pra^'er  for  whatso- 
ever we  wish  in  Christ's  name,  the  "  effectual,  fervent  pra^'er 
of  a  righteous  man,"  can  onl}-  be  addressed  to  the  heavenly 
Father  with  this  same  conditionality  attached,  by  implication  I 
or  expressl}',  to  its  ever}-  sigh,  its  ever}-  thought,  its  ever}' 
word.  But  if  this  be  the  ver^-  nature  of  Christian  pra3-er  ; 
if  we  can  only  ask  recover}'  of  health  for  ourselves  or  others, 
if  such  be  the  Father's  will,  —  what  becomes  of  the  proposed 
test  by  a  hospital  ward  ?  Christian  pra3'er  must  be  for  all 
the  wards  and  all  their  patients,  that  they  ma}'  all  recover,  if 
God  will.  As  likely  as  not,  it  may  be  in  his  wisdom  that 
the  ward  not  allotted  to  the  necessarily  non-Christian  suppli- 


1 98  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

cations  shall  have  the  larger  proportion  of  recoveries.     Look 
at  it  as  we  may,  the  test  shows  itself  to  be  inapplicable. 

And  3-et  it  may  be  held,  not  as  a  matter  of  miracle,  in  the 
popular  conception  of  that  term,  but  as  a  result  of  common 
observation,  that  in  the  case  of  two  hospitals,  one  of  which 
is  conducted  in  careful  but  non-religious  wa^^s,  and  the  other 
in  careful  and  Christian  ways,  the  patients  in  the  latter 
would,  generally,  gain  peace  of  mind  and  hope  in  such  wise, 
that  they  would  be  more  likely  to  recover  health  than  the  no 
less  skilfully  tended  sufterers  in  the  former. 

To  sum  up,  this  letter  is  intended  to  maintain,  that, 
whether  the  desire  to  pray  be  intuitional  or  acquired,  prayer 
is,  in  a  large  measure,  effective  in  attaining  the  direct  objects 
prayed  for ;  and,  where  this  ma}'  not  be,  it  soothes  the  mind, 
and  strengthens  the  suppliant  for  enduring  manfully  that 
which  is  the  inevitable  behest  of  beneficence ;  and,  3'et  fur- 
ther, this  letter  maintains,  that,  apart  from  Christian  prayer 
necessarily  involving  such  efforts  for  the  objects  praj-ed  for 
as  would  be  credited  with  the  special  cures  in  the  ward-test 
contemplated  (if  that  test  were  otherwise  possible),  it  is 
simpl}'  and  absolutely  impossible,  b}'^  reason  of  the  condition- 
ality  which  attaches  as  an  essential  characteristic  to  all 
Christian  prayer. 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

John  Macnaught. 

London,  Aug.  25,  1872. 


Tlie  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  199 

[TO  THE  EDITOR  OF  "  THE  SPECTATOE."] 

Sir,  —  I  must  confess  to  have  experienced  a  certain 
amount  of  difficulty  in  apprehending  the  exact  force  of  Mr. 
Galton's  argument  with  regard  to  what  he  considers  "  stra- 
tegic points  ' '  in  the  present  discussion. 

He  asserts  that  those  who  deny  the  right  of  appeal  to  sta- 
tistical inquirj^  upon  the  efficacy  of  prayer  implicitly  assume 
two  propositions ;  viz.,  that  the  desire  to  pray  is  intuitive, 
and  that  the  cogency  of  intuition  is  greater  than  observation. 
These  two  propositions  he  proceeds  to  disprove.  Now, 
granting,  for  the  moment,  that  he  has  succeeded  in  doing  so, 
I  do  not  clearly  see  how  he  considers  that  he  has  advanced 
his  position  with  regard  to  the  inefficacy  of  prayer.  It 
appears  to  me  that  Mr.  Galton's  argument  is  entirely  a  work 
of  supererogation. 

I  am  not  aware  that  those  who  profess  belief  in  the  efficacy 
of  prayer  are  under  the  necessity  of  arguing  that  the  reason 
of  holding  such  a  belief  is  a  matter  of  intuition  with  them. 
The  reasonable  Christian,  no  more,  I  suppose,  than  the  sci- 
entific man,  is  liable  to  maintain  that  a  proposition  which  is 
not  of  the  nature  of  an  axiom  is  incapable  of  proof.  Yet 
Mr.  Galton's  letter  seems  to  be  based  on  a  contrary  opinion. 
The  process  of  his  reasoning  is  very  simple.  He  first  makes 
the  assumption  that  those  who  oppose  his  view  consider 
intuition  to  be  the  only  ground  for  prayer.  He  proceeds  to 
prove  that  the  desire  to  pray  is  not  intuitive.  This  he  con- 
siders equivalent  to  proving  that  the  belief  in  the  efficacy  of 


200  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

praj-er  is  absurd.      Surely  the  demonstration  is  not  quite 
complete. 

The  objection  of  those  who  deny  the  right  of  appeal  to 
statistical  inquiry  in  this  matter  is  not  that  such  a  method  is 
an  appeal  to  experience,  when  it  sliould  be  an  appeal  to 
intuition,  but,  rather,  tliat  it  is  an  ai)peal  to  only  one__braiicli  1 
of  experience,  and  that  a  branch  which  science  is  not  compe- 
tent to  investigate.  If  Mr.  Galton  means  to  maintain  that 
there  is  nothing  which  is  not  within  the  range  of  scientific  ' 
inquiry,  he  should  sa^'  so.  The  discussion  would  be  much 
simpler.  To  assert  that  there  is  no  efficacy  in  prajer, 
because  there  is  no  God  to  pray  to,  would  be  a  plain  enough 
statement.     Perhaps  this  is  a  "  strategic  point  "  in  reserve. 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

Charles  W.  Stubbs. 
Granborough  Vicarage,  Bucks. 

[to  the  EDITOK  of  "the  Sl'ECTATOK."] 

Sib,  —  Can  you  allow  me  space  for  a  few  words  on  the 
subject  of  the  "  Efficacy  of  Prayer  "  ? 

1.  It  seems  to  me  that  Mr.  Galton,  and  those  who  think 
like  liim,  have,  as  against  the  Christian,  avoided  the  main 
point  at  issue.  Sureh-  the  Christian  argues  from  the  exist- 1 
ence  of  a  loving  Father  in  lieaven  to  the  efficacy  of  praj'er, 
and  not  from  the  efficacy  of  prater  to  the  existence  of  a 
personal  God.  It  is  because  Christ  has  revealed  to  us  a  i 
heavenly  Father  who  loves  us  with  a  love  of  which  we  can 
only  see  a  faint  reflection  in  the  highest  eartlil}'  affection, 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  201 

that  we  Christians  are  emboldened  to  offer  up  our  petitions 
to  him  in  trustful  and  childlike  confidence.  It  would  be  to 
me  the  most  glaring  contradiction  in  terras,  to  believe  in  a 
Deity  such  as  the  God  of  the  New  Testament,  and  yet  to  ' 
hold,  either  that  he  does  not  heed  my  prayers,  or  else  that  he 
cannot  answer  them  if  he  would.  Let  Mr.  Gal  ton  prove  to 
me  that  Christianit}'  is  an  imposture  or  a  delusion,  and  he 
will  have  no  need  to  pelt  me  with  statistics  in  proof  of  the 
inefficacy  of  prayer. 

2.  Mr.  Galton  says  of  his  opponents,  "  They  assert,  first, 
that  the  desire  to  pray  is  intuitive  to  man."  I  assert  nothing 
of  the  sort  in  the  sense  in  which  Mr.  Galton  understands  the 
words.  I  hold  that  the  desire  to  pray  is  "  intuitive  "  just  so 
far  as  the  belief  in  a  personal  God  is  "  intuitive,"  and  no  / 
farther.  And  this  belief  in  a  personal  God  I  shall  certainly 
hold  to  be  "  intuitive  "  and  "  necessary,"  in  the  highest 
sense  of  the  words,  in  spite  of  the  undoubted  fact  that  the 
vast  majority  of  the  human  race  have  never  held  the  belief 
at  all. 

3.  "  But,"  it  is  urged,  "  examine  statistics  ;  see  with  what 
diflSculties  30ur  doctrine  of  prayer  is  beset!"  Granted. 
But  I  assert,  in  repl}',  that  the  .highest  spiritual  truths  are 
precisely  those  which  are  and  must  be  beset  with  the  greatest  ' 
diflliculties.  I  hold,  with  Dr.  Newman,  that  the  fundamental 
spiritual  truth,  without  which  all  religion  can  be  little  better 
than  a  mockery,  the  belief  in  a  personal  God,  is  the  one 
point  of  faith  which  is  encompassed  with  most   difficult}'. 


202  Tlie  EJjlcacy  of  Prayer. 

Yet  this  being  of  a  God  is  a  truth  which  is  borne  in  upon  my 
mind  with  a  conviction  as  irresistible  as  the  conviction  of  ' 
my  own  existence.  That  this  subject  of  the  efficacy  of 
pra3'er  is  in  many  respects  painfull}'  perplexing,  I  readily 
admit.  But  I  venture  to  think  that  the  Christian  solution 
is  at  least  as  satisfactor}'  as  that  of  the  philosopher,  who, 
like  the  ancient  sophist,  insists  upon  making  man  the 
measure  of  all  things,  and  metes  out  with  the  iron  meas-  ' 
uring-rod  of  statistics,  and  averages  the  influences  of  that 
Spirit  which  "  bloweth  where  it  listeth." 

I  am,  sir,  &c., 

A.  Babington. 

Marlborough  College. 

[to  the  editor  of  "  THE  SPECTATOR."] 

Sir,  —  If  the  desire  to  pray  is,  as  Mr.  Galton  asserts, 
"  not  intuitive  "  to  humanity,  but  "  is  an  artificial  creation 
of  theologians,"  what  made  the  theologians  pra}'  ?     Out  of    I 
nothing,  nothing  can  come,  is  as  true  of  mind   as  of  matter. 
If  a  future  missionary  should  ever  find  a  tribe   of  savages 
who  have  no  belief  in  invisible  power,  and  no  feeling  of  wor- 
ship, he  will  find  it  a  hard,  if  not  a  hopeless  task,  to  create        y 
s^  I      such  a  feeling.     The  records  of   Christian  missions  clearly    (vf  > 
■*»•       prove  that  the  missionary  has  not  to  create   the  inclination    1/ 
to  pray,  but  mer^l}'  to  direct  the  existing  worship  of  the   ' 
unseen  to  a  worthier  object.     Indeed,  Mr.  Galton,  in  admit- 
ting fetish  worship  among  the  "  class  of  feelings  which  are 
intuitive,"  virtually  concedes  his  first  strategic  point ;  for  it 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  203 

is  the  instinct  or  intuition  of  worship,  not  its  perfection,  that 
the  theologian  claims  to  bo  common  to  humanity.  If  we 
believe  in  the  existence  of  a  personal  Deity,  the  Father  of 
all  men,  it  is  surel}'  not  too  much  to  suppose  that  he  conde- 
scends to  ever}'  aspiration,  however  feeble  and  imperfect,  of 
the  lowest  of  his  children.  When  men  could  find  no  better 
mode  of  judging  than  the  result  of  a  trial  by  ordeal  or  duel, 
I  believe  that  God,  even  through  such  imperfect  means,  did 
often  "  defend  the  right."  If  he  had  invariably  done  so,  the 
process  of  mental  and  spiritual  growth  would  have  been 
arrested.  If  it  is  true  generally',  as  Mr.  Galton  believes, 
that  the  theologians  of  the  present  English  Church  do  not 
believe  in  the  divine  origin  of  dreams,  miraculous  cures, 
demoniacal  possessions,  and  exorcisms,  so  much  the  worse 
for  that  Church,  since  its  leaders  have  ceased  to  believe  in 
the  faith  of  their  Master. 

Mr.  Galton's  second  point  is,  to  use  his  own  expression, 
easily  disposed  of.  Worship  of  the  invisible  is  intuitive,  if 
by  intuition  is  meant  that  it  exists,  and  has  existed  in  ever3; 
age  and  nation ;  and  it  has  what  Mr.  Galton  considers  the 
superior  cogency  prompted  by  the  observation  of  facts. 
Christians  need  have  no  fear  of  the  result  of  statistical 
inquiries  as  to  the  efficacy  of  pra^-er,  provided  that  the 
inquirers  are  men  thoroughly  qualified  to  deal  with  the  sub- 
ject. I  am,  sir,  &c., 

J.  W.  F. 


204     •  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

[to  the  editor  of  "  THE  SrECTATOR."] 

Sir,  —  The  continued  interest  manifested  in  tliis  discus- 
sion is  a  very  satisfactory'  indication  of  moral  earnestness 
pervading  a  great  number  of  liberal  thinkers.  Will  you 
accept  the  following  crude  contribution  to  it,  quantani  valeat? 

How  are  we  to  reconcile  the  reasonableness  of  praj'er  with 
the  existence  of  a  divine  Being,  who,  from  the  first,  planned 
ever}"  thing  in  perfect  wisdom,  and  who,  as  we  must  suppose, 
from  the  first  foresaw  the  whole  infinite  series  of  causes  and 
efiects  that  would  be  evolved  from  his  creation  ?  Can  the 
divine  purposes  be  changed  ?  Can  they  become  different  in 
the  result  from  what  they  were  in  the  original  intention?  We 
can  scarcely  suppose  it.  How,  then,  can  prayer  under  any 
circumstances  be  efiectual  ?  Perhaps  some  indication  of  the 
answer  may  be  found  in  the  following  considerations. 

We  conceive  all  events  to  have  their  source  in  the  will  of 
the  divine  Mind,  and  that  the  "  laws  of  nature  "  are  merely 
the  expression  of  that  will.  Although  the  divine  Mind  be 
endowed  with  perfect  foreknowledge,  we  must  still  conceive 
it  to  be  conscious  of  a  succession  of  impressions,  i.e.,  of  a 
past,  a  present,  and  a  future  distinct  from  each  other ;  the 
two  first  onh'  being  certain  as  having  existed,  the  last  being 
still  contingent  upon  the  divine  will.  It  is  onl}'^  from  his 
knowledge  of  what  that  will  will  be  that  even  God  can  be 
certain  as  to  the  future.  We  must  also  conceive  the  divine 
Mind  to  be  susceptible  of  satisfaction  (if  we  may  use  the 
expression)  in  the  evolution  and  working-out  of  his  plans. 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  205 

and,  in  so  far,  of  being  influenced  and  acted  upon  by  what 
we  may  term  external  causes. 

Now,  why  may  not  prayer  in  itself  be  one  of  these  causes  ?  ' 
May  not  the  perception  of  the  earnest  desire  of  the  creature 
be  a  cause  acting  upon  the  divine  Mind    (we  need  scarcely 
sa}-  that  it  is  only  the  thoroughly  earnest  and  sincere  prayer 
which  is  entitled  to  the  name)  ?     And  may  we  not  go  a  step 
further,  and  saj'  that  every  prayer  becomes  one  of  the  endless 
series  of  events,  and  so  rnust  have  an  effect  ?  —  what,  or  in 
what  wa}',  is  bej'ond  us  to  know.     That  the  Creator  foresaw 
that  such  cause  would  arise,  need  not  diminish   its  influence   ' 
when  it  actually  arises.     It  seems  only  reasonable  further  to 
conceive,  that,  according  as  prayer  emanates   from  a  mind 
more  or  less  in  harmony  with  the  divine  Mind,  so  we  may  \ 
anticipate  that  the  effect  will  correspond. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 
W.  Y. 

THE   EFFICACY   OF   PRAYER. 

[to  the  editor  of  "the  spectator."] 
Sir,  —  Owing  to  my  absence  from  England  on  a  somewhat 
erratic  tour,  I  have  owXy  just  received  "The  Spectator" 
Ci  the  3d  and  10th  of  this  month,  —  the  first  containing  your 
article  on  the  "  EfTicac}-  of  Prater,"  in  answer  to  Mr. 
Galton  ;  and  the  second,  several  letters  on  the  same  subject. 
I  hope  it  is  not  altogether  too  late  for  one  more,  as  there 
is  an  aspect  of  the  question  which  has  not   been   touched 


2o6  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

upon  by  the  others,  which  I  am  very  anxious  to  bring  before 
3^our  readers,  as  affording  the  only  ground  on  which  belief 
in  the  efficacy  of  prayer  can  be  held  consistently  with  the 
belief  in  the  invariable  order  of  Nature,  which  is  from  year  to 
year  extending  and  strengthening  its  hold  upon  all  educated 
minds.  Prof.  Tj-ndall,  Mr.  Galton,  and  all  other  scientific 
opponents  of  the  former  belief,  of  course,  direct  their  efforts 
to  show  that  prayer  is  inefficacious  over  the  course  of 
physical  events,  and  obtain  an  easy  success ;  first,  because, 
even  in  cases  of  apparent  physical  changea  in  answer  to 
prayer,  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  they  were  not  mere 
coincidences  ;  and,  secondl}'^,  because  their  opponents  have, 
unconsciousl}',  it  is  true,  but  not  the  less  surel}',  as  little 
belief  as  themselves  in  the  power  of  prayer  to  alter  the  order 
of  Nature,  where  that  order  is  known  and  manifest.  The 
most  devout  believer  in  prayer  would  never,  in  our  day, 
dream  of  pra3-ing  that  the  sun  should  be  arrested  in  its 
course,  though  the  fate  of  all  that  was  dearest  to  him  on 
earth  depended  on  the  prolongation  of  the  daj'  or  night. 
The  habitual  and  lifelong  experience  of  the  invariable  order 
of  the  sun's  course  would  be  too  strong,  and  the  consequent 
perception  of  the  magnitude  of  the  miracle  required  to 
change  it,  too  Aivid,  to  allow  the  idea  of  praying  for  it  even 
to  enter  the  mind.  It  is  clear,  that,  in  every  case  where  the 
same  certainty  of  experience  existed,  the  same  sense  of  the 
inutilit3'  of  prayer  would  follow  ;  and  that  the  only  real 
difference  between  the  scientifically  educated  and  the  unedu- 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  207 

cated  mind  in  this  matter  is  the  extent  of  the  range  of 
phenomena  in  which  respectively  they  perceive  and  feel  the 
immutability  of  natural  order.  Were  the  laws  of  meteorol- 
cg}',  or  those  which  govern  disease,  ever  to  become  so 
thoroughly  and  universally^  known  as  to  form  part  of  the 
habitual  experience  of  mankind,  people  would  no  more  pray 
for  health  or  fine  weather  than  they  pra}'  now  for  the  sun  to 
halt  on  its  wa}-.  They  would  instinctively  recoil  from  the 
arrogant  absurdity  of  asking  that  a  miracle  involving 
changes  in  the  settled  order  of  the  universe  should  be 
worked  for  their  special  benefit,  which  might  be  the  special 
disaster  of  their  neighbors.  Even  now,  I  believe,  the  feeling 
once  expressed  by  the  late  Duke  of  Cambridge,  when  prayers 
for  fine  weather  were  being  read  in  church,  —  "  Very  proper, 
very  proper  ;  but  it  won't  come  till  the  wind  changes,"  —  is 
that  of  most  modern  congregations  ;  and  few  forms  of  scepti- 
cism are  more  destructive  of  true  religious  faith.  There  is 
another  and  far  higher  ground  than  any  possible  or  probable 
increase  in  our  scientific  knowledge,  which  will  lead  to  the 
disuse  of  prayer  for  physical  boons,  t.e.,  the  higlier  concep- 
tion of  God,  which  gi'ows  with  the  growth  of  moral  and 
spiritual  life,  —  the  conception  of  him  as  a  perfectl}'  wise  and 
good  Father,  to  whom  we  stand  in  the  relation  of  weak, 
blind,  and  helpless  children,  superseding  the  conception  of 
an  omnipotent  Autocrat,  whose  wrath  raaj'  be  propitiated,  or 
favor  won,  by  the  gifts,  praj'ers,  or  praises  of  the  slaves  of 
his  arbitrar}'  will.     The  mind  to  wliich  the  former  conception 


2o8  The  Efficanj  of  Prayer. 

has  become  a  reality  revolts  from  the  ineffable  aiTOgance  and 
folly  of  petitions  which  would  dictate  to  that  perfect  good- 
ness, and  alter  the  order  established  by  that  perfect  wisdom. 
There  can  be  but  one  prayer  with  reference  to  the  outward 
events  of  life,  for  him  who  has  faith  in  God  as  his  Father 
and  King:  "  TI13'  will  be  done  ;  give  me  strength  to  do  and 
bear  it."  And  here  we  come  to  the  prayer  which  is  effica- 
cious, to  the  domain  in  which  prayer  is  all-poM^erful,  and 
never  fails  of  its  answer  ;  and  that  answer  is  not  a  matter  of  ' 
belief,  but  of  knowledge.  He  who  has  pra3ed  in  agony  of 
soul,  every  fibre  of  his  being  quivering  with  dread  of  the 
cup  presented  to  his  lips,  knows  that  his  prayer  is  answered, 
when  the  angels  of  strong  patience  and  enduring  faith 
descend  into  his  heart,  ministering  the  peace  of  perfect  trust 
till  he  can  take  the  cup  with  unfaltering  hand,  and  drain  it, 
saying  only,  "  Thj^  will,  not  mine,  be  done."  He  who,  in 
the  dark  storm  of  doubt  or  temptation,  has  prayed  for  light, 
only  for  light  to  see  the  truth  and  the  right,  knows  that  his 
prayer  is  answered,  when  a  path  becomes  visible  in  which 
he  is  constrained  to  tread,  let  it  lead  where  it  may.  And, 
Avhen  we  pray  lilve  this,  we  know  that  we  cannot  pray  amiss. 
There  is  no  earthly  blessing  which  may  not  be  a  curse  in 
disguise ;  but  faith,  love,  purity,  strength  to  do  our  duty  , 
even  unto  death,  these  must  ever  remain  blessings,  the 
value  of  which  cannot  change  with  any  change  of  circum- 
stances. Tliose,  again,  to  whom  prayer  "  is  not  only 
petition,    but   communion,"  —  they,    also,  know  that    their   n 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  209 

prayers  are  answered,  when  in  the  stillness  of  morning  or 
evening,  in  the  hnsh  of  midnight,  or  the  pause  in  the  toil 
and  turmoil  of  the  day,  they  lift  up  their  hearts  to  that 
Presence  whose  holiness  shames  all  impurity,  whose  love  • 
shames  all  selfishness,  whose  ceaseless  activity  shames  all 
faint-hearted  sloth.  To  tell  all  these  that  they  first  imagine 
the  strength,  the  light,  the  help,  they  are  conscious  of 
receiving,  and  then  account  for  them  by  imagining  a  God 
who  answers  prayer,  is  neither  a  more  nor  less  valid  argu-/ 
ment  than  to  say  that  we  first  imagine  the  impressions  we 
are  conscious  of  through  our  senses,  and  then  invent  an 
external  world  to  account  for  them.  The  proof  of  the 
existence  of  a  God  in  communion  with  the  souls  he  has 
created  is  of  precisely  the  same  kind  as  the  proof  of  an 
external  world,  and  is  equally'  incapable  of  being  demon-  / 
strated  or  disproved. 

The  question  of  the  efficacy  of  pra3'er  for  the  moral  welfare 
of  others  —  family,  country-,  or  race  —  is  not  so  easy  to  deal 
with.  We  can  have  no  knowledge  that  changes  we  have 
prayed  for  in  other  minds  are  realh'  the  results  of  our 
prayers.  One  result  we  can,  indeed,  reckon  upon  ;  for  he 
who  pra3-s  in  spirit  and  in  truth  for  the  good  of  others  will 
do  all  that  in  him  lies  to  promote  it :  and  in  this  wa^-  a 
prayerful  people  —  I  do  not  mean  a  people  who  say  their  '■ 
prayers  —  will  so  far  bring  about  the  fulfilment  of  their  own 
petitions.  All  other  means  by  which  such  praj^ers  become 
eflScacious  are  hid  from  us  in  impenetrable  mystery'.     This 

14 


2IO  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

only  is  certain,  that  no  instinct  is  stronger  than  that  which 
impels  us  to  pray  for  those  we  love,  —  impels  even  those  who 
never  pray  for  themselves,  and  have  no  conscious  belief  in  a 
God  who  can  hear  and  answer  pra3^er.  Such  an  instinct,  so 
powerful,  and  so  universal,  carries  with  it,  to  all  who  believe 
in  a  beneficent  Creator,  its  own  proof  that  it  cannot  have 
been  implanted  in  vain,  a  miserable  mockery  of  the  unselfish 
affection  which  is  the  divinest  thing  within  us  ;  and  beyond 
this  the  understanding  cannot  go. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

M.  G.  G. 

Chamouni,  Aug.  22,  1872. 

[This  letter  must  close  this  correspondence.  —  Ed.  "  Spec- 
tator."] 

THE   DISCUSSION   ABOUT   PRAYER. 

A  FEW  remarks,  in  conclusion,  on  the  ver^^  remarkable 
correspondence  which  we  have  published,  and  which  we 
have  suppressed,  —  mere  considerations  of  space  have  com- 
pelled us  to  suppress  man}'  times  as  much  as  we  have  pub- 
lished, including  some  very  able  letters,  —  concerning  the 
efficacy  of  prayer,  may,  perhaps,  bring  out  the  opposite  views 
taken  b}^  the  scientific  and  b}'  the  religious  mind  of  this  gen- 
eration, with  more  clearness  than  was  possible  when  it  began. 
In  the  remarkable  paper  by  Mr.  Gal  ton,  whicli  recommenced 
the  discussion,  there  were  two  main  threads  of  the  argument. 
First,  Mr.  Gal  ton,  with  happy  results  for  his  own  case,  — 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  211 

though  in  perfect  conformity  with  the  true  statistical  spirit, 
which  alwa^'s,  and  quite  rightly,  endeavors  to  get  free  of 
the  error  likel}^  to  result  from  studying  individual  instances, 
and  to  test  general  laws  b}^  large  averages,  —  appealed  to 
the  results  of  formulated  praj-ers  for  the  life  of  kings,  for  ' 
the  grant  of  grace,  wisdom,  and  understanding  to  the  nohili- 
t}',  and  so  forth,  and  showed  by  figures  that  those  prayers 
are  by  no  means  answered  by  any  special  lengthening  of  the 
life  of  sovereigns,  and  appear  to  be  explicitly  rejected  as 
regards  the  wisdom  of  the  nobility,  since  insanity  —  a  char- 
acteristic the  most  opposite  to  "  grace,  wisdom,  and  under- 
standing "  —  is  commoner  in  their  caste  than  in  most  others. 
And  Mr.  Galton  made  a  strong  point  of  the  lives  of  mission-  I 
aries.  There,  he  ver}^  fairly  said,  if  anj^where,  3'ou  would 
be  sure  that  the  g.-ound  of  the  prayer  for  length  of  life  is 
eminently  rational  and  disinterested.  A  great  part  of  a 
niissionar3''s  life  is  spent  in  acquiring  a  thorough  command 
of  the  means  of  communicating  with  the  people  he  is  to  con- 
vert. Yet  missionaries  die,  like  other  men,  from  the  effects 
of  climate,  before  thej'  have  even  brought  their  devout  pur- 
poses to  bear  on  the  people  they  address.  Even  if  they  do 
not,  there  is  no  supernatural  lengthening  of  their  lives. 
Their  averages  of  life  are  not  unlike  the  averages  of  profane 
lives.  The}-,  as  a  class,  appear  to  owe  nothing  to  their 
religious  pui-pose,  or  the  prayers  for  a  long  career,  which 
their  religious  purpose  may  be  supposed  to  occasion.  Such 
was  his  first  point ;  and  it  is  onl}-  fair  to  add  that  he  did  not 


212  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

assume,  but  carefully  repudiated,  any  abstract  ideas  of  phys- 
ical law  as  bearing  on  these  questions.  He  was  candid 
enough  to  point  out, — what  some  of  our  correspondents, 
who  otherwise  take  Mr.  Galton's  view,  have  forgotten  or 
ignored, — that,  apart  from  the  supposed  invariability  of 
physical  laws,  many  means  are  open  to  the  Christian's  Prov- 
idence of  answering  such  praj^ers  as  these  through  the  mere 
exertion  of  influence  over  the  minds  of  the  missionaries,  or 
other  subjects  of  the  prayer.  God  may  keep  a  man  out  of 
peril  of  tropical  fever,  or  wi'eck,  or  assassination,  by  simply 
so  guiding  his  thoughts  and  purposes  as  to  restrain  liim 
from  exposing  himself  to  the  conditions  or  causes  of  these 
dangers.  If  he  does  not  so  guard  us,  it  is  not  from  any 
want  of  purely  spiritual  resources  for  so  doing.  Mr.  Gal- 
ton's second  point  was,  that  there  is.  quite  enough  to 
account  for  the  universal  use  of  prayer,  and  for  the  relief 
it  gives,  without  supposing  that  prayers  are  answered. 
The  germ  of  feeling,  he  said,  which  leads  to  prayer,  is 
common  to  the  lower  animals,  especially  to  mothers  which 
have  lost  their  3'oung.  "There  is  a  3'earning  of  the  heart, 
a  craving  for  help,"  he  said  with  a  good  deal  of  eloquence 
and  pathos,  "  it  knows  not  Avlience,  certainlj'  from  no  source 
that  it  sees.  Of  a  similar  kind  is  the  Ijittcr  cr^-  of  the 
hare  when  the  greyhound  is  almost  upon  her.  She  aban- 
dons hope  through  her  own  efforts,  and  screams  —  but  to 
whom?  It  is  a  voice  convulsively  sent  out  into  space,  whose 
utterance  is  a  ph3'8ical  relief."     And  he  added,  in  a  subse- 


The  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  213 

quent  letter  printed  in  these  columns,  that  prayer  is  in  no 
other  sense  than  this  intuitive  with  men  ;  and  that  it  acquires 
the  apparent  character  of  an  imperative  instinct,  only 
through  the  ascendency  of  a  habit  early  implanted  hy  the 
piety  of  mothers,  or  other  friends  and  teachers. 

To  Mr.  Galton's  arguments,  it  has  been  replied  b^^  our- 
selves, or  some  of  our  correspondents,  that  there  is  no  real 
basis  such  as  Mr.  Galton  is  so  eager  to  assume  for  a  statisti-  ' 
cal  treatment  of  the  results  of  praj'er ;  since,  in  the  first 
place,  praj-ers  are  not  mere  utterances  in  the  vocative  case, 
of  which  any  specimen  is  as  good  as  another,  but  var^'  in 
proportion  to  the  depth  and  intensity  of  the  life  thrown  into 
them  ;  so  that  the  very  kind  of  prayers  by  which  chiefly  Mr. 
Galton  tests  his  case  —  the  formulated  prayers  for  classes  of 
persons  —  are,  probably,  those  which  partake  least  of  all  ' 
of  the  spiritual  essence  of  pi*ayer.  Again :  we  might  have 
added  that  the  general  pra3'ers  in  question  are  not  exclusive 
pra3-ers,  the  efficacy  of  which,  if  they  have  efficacj-,  implies 
that  the  classes  named  shall  have  longer  lives  than  other 
people,  —  since  all  classes  are  successivel}-  included,  all  "  the 
sick  "  and  all  "  the  afflicted,"  until  we  reach  the  comprehen- 
sive prayer  for  "  all  thy  people,"  — but,  on  the  contrarj-, 
they  are  mere  classifications  to  help  the  imagination  of  the 
petitioner ;  in  other  words,  are  praj'ers  which  would  be 
answered  rather  hy  the  greater  health,  bodily  and  mental,  of 
the  whole  people,  than  b}^  any  comparative  favor  to  a  partic- 
ular section  of  them.     Further,  it  has  been  replied,  that,  the 


:^ 


214  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

intenser  and  the  truer  is  the  spirit  of  any  prajer,  the  more 
completel}'  is  a  pra3'er  offered  in  that  spirit  wholly  outside 
the  reach  of  classificatory  observation,  and  the  less  would  it 
prescribe  to  God  the  exact  mode  in  which  it  should  be  ' 
answered  ;  so  that,  even  if  it  could  be  observed  and  classi- 
fied, it  would  be  hard  indeed,  without  cross-examining  him 
who  offered  it  on  the  deepest  secrets  of  his  spiritual  life,  to  ' 
determine  whether  it  had  been  answered  or  not.  Finally, 
we  have  observed  that  the  only  prayer  which  we  know  to  have 
been  offered  throughout  all  the  ages  of  the  Christian  Church, 
from  the  depth  of  the  Christian  heart,  —  the  praj-er  for  the 
progress  of  Christ's  gospel,  — has  been  granted  in  the  most 
marvellous  way,  and  that  against  all  the  a  j/^r/o/-/ probabilities 
of  the  case,  if  there  were  no  God  who  answers  pra^'er.  In 
relation  to  Mr.  Galton's  second  thesis,  —  that  though  prayer, 
so  far  as  it  is  a  blind  cry  of  nature  for  help,  directed  it  knows  ' 
not  whither,  may  be  intuitive,  yet  so  far  as  it  is  a  conscious 
spiritual  address  to  a  perfect  and  all-powerful  invisible  Being,  ^ 
it  is  a  result  of  the  education  (we  use  the  word  in  its  highest 
and  truest  sense)  of  complex  faiths  and  affections, — there 
is,  we  think,  a  very  general  disposition  to  agree  with  Mr. 
Galton  ;  and  we  confess  that  we  do  not  see  the  bearing  of 
this  part  of  his  argument  on  his  sceptical  position.  His  drift 
appeared  to  be,  "  Do  not  argue  that  prayer,  in  your  sense,  is 
inseparable  from  the  higher  nature  of  man.  The  mere  blind 
cr}-  for  help  may  be  inseparable  from  that  nature ;  but  the 
belief  in  the  reality  of  that  help  depends  on  the  special  line 


The  Ejjicacy  of  Prayer.  215 

of  development  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  life,"  To 
which  we  repl}',  "that,  of  course,  so  far  as  the  blind  cry 
for  help  is  not  naturally  and  essentially  connected  in  man 
with  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  with  the  transcendent 
obligation  of  doing  right,  and  the  need  of  getting  grace  to 
do  it,  so  far,  certainl}',  intellectual  development  ma}^  fail  to 
give  this  blind  cry  any  more  certain  object  than  is  present 
to  the  lower  animals  in  the  agony  of  their  death-spasm  ; 
but,  in  our  opinion,  the  normal  development  of  the  emotion  ' 
which  sends  this  instinctive  cry  into  the  night  for  help 
is  bound  up  with  the  growth  of  moral  law  within  us,  and 
with  the  growing  faith  in  the  grace  and  love  of  a  Law- 
giver." On  this  last  point,  the  believers  in  2)rayer  are,  no 
doubt,  at  issue  with  Mr.  Galton,  but  not  many  of  them,  as 
far  as  we  can  see,  on  the  point  which  he  presented  to  us.  If 
disbelief  in  a  God  who  can  give,  at  the  very  least,  ample 
moral  power  in  answer  to  earnest  appeals  for  it,  —  and  with 
it  the  many  ph3sical  gifts  of  which  such  moral  power  may  be  1 
the  source,  —  is  a  natural  and  normal  result  of  the  accumu- 
lation of  experience,  inward  and  outward,  then  Mr.  Galton's 
position  as  to  the  "intuitive"  origin  of  praj'er  comes  to 
something.     If  not,  not. 

It  will  be  obsei^ved,  that,  in  this  account  of  the  opposite 
positions  taken  by  Mr.  Galton  and  by  his  opponents,  we  have 
excluded  the  somewhat  irrelevant  discussion,  carefully 
excluded  also  by  Mr.  Galton  himself,  as  to  the  means  by 
which   God  may  answer   pra3'cr  without   mii'aculous   inter- 


2 1 6  The  Efficacij  of  Prayer. 

ference  with  natural  laws.  We  mn,y  fairly  assume  that  no 
modest  Christian  will  pray  for  a  miracle  for  his  own  particu- 
lar benefit,  or  that  of  his  friends,  —  i.e.,  for  any  interference 
which  would  unsettle  all  other  men's  confidence  in  the  great  ' 
invariable  laws  known  to  us,  and  therefore  their  trust  in  the 
God  of  Nature,  —  nay,  even  that  he  could  hardly  believe  it 
permitted  to  a  religious  mind  so  to  pra}-.  But  it  does  not 
follow  from  this  at  all  that  it  is  permissible  to  pray  for  spir-  ' 
itual  blessings  only.  How  any  clear-headed  man  can  doubt, 
that,  if  we  are  to  assume  an}'  scope  for  a  real  answer  to 
prayer  at  all,  it  can  be  strictly  limited  to  spiritual  blessings, 
we  cannot  see.  If  God  gives  what  is  best  for  us  independ- 
ently of  all  prayer,  then  to  pray  for  even  spiritual  blessings 
is  quite  superfluous,  except  on  the  dishonest  theorj^  of 
re-acting  upon  yourself  by  a  kind  of  dramatic  spiritual  fiction. 
If,  as  all  who  believe  in  prater  suppose,  he  has,  for  the  sake 
of  securing  free  communion  between  himself  and  his  crea- 
tures, thought  right  to  leave  many  good  things  ungiven  till 
they  are  asked  for  from  the  bottom  of  the  heart,  in  an  act  of 
free  intercourse  with  himself,  then,  though  good  men  will 
always  suspect  their  pra3'ers  for  happiness  and  the  supposed 
means  of  happiness  much  more,  and  offer  them  much  more 
submissivel}-,  tlian  their  prayers  for  goodness,  it  seems  to  us 
impossible  to  say  that  it  is  wrong  or  useless  to  include  them  ' 
in  their  prayers.  As  to  God's  conceivable  power  of  answer- 
ing such  pra^-ers  without  miracle,  Mr.  Galton  himself  points 
out  how  wide  and  close  is  the  interweaving  of  the  physical 


Tlte  Efficacy  of  Prayer.  217 

and  spiritual,  so  that,  to  an  all-powerful  Being,  it  is  hard  to 
conceive  what  even  physical  ends  might  not  be  gained  by 
mere  action  on  the  spirits  of  men.  If,  for  example,  as  some 
sober  observers  believe, — we  are  not  impljnng  any  belief  in 
it  ourselves,  but  putting  a  mere  h^-pothesis,  —  even  heavy 
phjsical  objects  can  be  raised,  and  serious  ph^^sical  ailments 
cured,  hy  new  forms  of  purely  "  psychic  "  force,  it  would  not 
be  in  the  least  inconceivable  that  the  climatological  causes 
of  rain  itself  might  be  controlled  without  ' '  miracle  "  b}'  the 
agenc}'  of  praj-er.  At  all  events,  we  certainl}'  know  far  too 
little  of  the  interweaving  of  spiritual  with  physical  laws  to 
dogmatize  about  the  impossibilit}'  that  God  should  answer 
earnest  and  humble  praters  for  even  physical  blessings  with- 
out miracle.  Undoubtedl}-,  however,  the  whole  strength  of 
the  belief  in  praj'er  centres  on  that  conscious  and  imperious 
need  of  man  for  spiritual  and  moral  help,  which  makes  praj^er 
to  the  Source  of  all  righteousness  a  vital  function  of  his 
inner  life,  —  a  need  which  ma}"  often  justifj-,  and  oftener 
excuse,  the  prayer  for  phj^sical  blessings,  such  as  the  life  of 
those  dear  to  us,  or  even  much  meaner  things,  so  far  as 
these  seem  reallj^  bound  up  with  the  deepest  needs  of  the 
spirit.  ♦  I 

It  will  be  said,  with  perfect  truth,  that  this  review  of  the 
controversy  with  Mr.  Galton  only  comes  to  this,  —  that 
while  his  statistical  argument  against  the  efficacy  of  praj'er 
goes  for  very  little,  or,  to  give  our  own  true  valuation  of  it, 
for  nothing,  the  argument  on  our  own  side,  being  merely  a 


2i8  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. 

priori^  has  no  force  for  those  who  look  at  the  matter,  as  Mr. 
Galton  does,  as  a  mere  case  for  impartial  investigation  by 
the  methods  of  inductive  science.  And  this  we  freely  admit. 
We  utterly  deny  that  ail  truth  is  attainable  b}^  the  same 
avenues.  We  do  not  doubt  that  Mr.  Galton  could  disprove 
the  "  efflcac}- "  of  (human)  love  quite  as  successfiill}-  (or 
unsuccessfully)  as  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  We  feel  little 
doubt,  for  instance,  that  beautiful  faces  have,  on  the  whole, 
attracted  to  themselves  more  love,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
than  homel}'  faces  ;  and,  very  likely,  Mr.  Galton  could  prove 
beyond  all  doubt  that  the  owners  of  beautiful  faces  have 
reaped  from  the  love  thus  lavished  upon  them  much  more 
anguish  and  calamit}^  than  joy.  If,  however,  Mr.  Galton 
were  to  argue  from  this  that  human  love  has  no  "  efficacy  " 
to  shed  gladness  on  human  life,  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind would  probabl}'  laugh  him  down,  and  declare  that  this 
was  not  a  region  in  which,  at  present  at  least,  statistical 
methods  can  be  applied  with  any  kind  of  advantage.  We 
say  the  same  of  the  argument  against  the  "  efficacy  of 
prayer."  Apart  from  the  a  priori  scientific  preconceptions 
which  Mr.  Galton  himself  disowned,  but  which  constituted 
all  the  real  attraction  of  his  argument  for  the  great  majority 
of  those  who  eagerly  seized  upon  it,  the  statistical  method 
has  just  as  much  applicability  to  the  question  of  the  "effi- 
cacy of  prayer,"  as  it  has  to  the  question  of  the  efficacy  of 
the  human  affections  to  produce  happiness,  —  in  other  words, 
none  at  all. 


Viil, 

THE  FUNCTION  OF  PRAYEE  IN  THE  ECON- 
OMY OF  THE  UNIVERSE. 

BY  REV.  WILLIAM  KNIGHT,  DUISTDEE. 

"  CONTEMPOBAKY  KEVIEW,"  VOL.  XXI.,  JANUARY,  1873,  PP.  183-189. 


Tins  article  was  made  the  occasion  of  the  discipline  of  Mr.  Knight 
by  the  Free  Church  Presbytery  of  Dundee,  of  which  he  was  a  mem- 
ber. He  had  previously  been  tried  by  the  same  presbytery  on  charges 
preferred  against  him  for  preaching,  on  invitation,  in  the  Unitarian 
chapel  in  London,  of  which  Rev.  James  Martineau  was  minister. 

Mr.  Knight  was  censured  by  the  Church  court  for  the  view  ot 
prayer  here  presented.  In  consequence,  lie  withdrew  from  the  Free 
Kirk;  and  St.  Enoch's  Church,  of  which  he  was  minister,  followed 
him.  They  joined  the  Established  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland, 
action  being  taken  by  the  General  Assembly  in  his  favor,  and  he  and 
his  church  were  formally  received  by  the  Dundee  (Established)  Pres- 
byter j^,  June  10,  1874. 


VIII. 

THE  FUNCTION   OF  PRAYER  IN  THE   ECONOMY 
OF  THE  UNWERSE. 

■QECENT  controversy  regarding  the  function  of  prayer 
in  the  economy  of  the  universe  has  illustrated  the 
almost  clironic  tendency  of  two  schools  of  thought,  and  the 
seemingly  inveterate  bias  which  they  produce.  The  reluc- 
tance of  the  religious  world  to  admit  that  there  is  a  sphere 
to  which  prayer  (in  the  sense  of  petition)  is  inherently  i^ 
applicable,  is  quite  as  conspicuous  as  is  the  hesitation  of  the 
physicist  to  concede  its  legitimacy,  and  to  admit  its  power 
within  the  spiritual  domain.  It  is  natural  that  those  whose 
life-work  is  the  investigation  of  physical  law,  and  whose 
researches  are  rigorously  governed  by  the  methods  of  induc- 
tion, should  wish  to  prove  the  value  of  an  alleged  power  by 
definite  experimental  tests,  such  as  the  collection  of  statis- 
tics, or  by  some  process  not  inferior  in  accuracy  to  those  on 
which  all  science  rests.  But  it  is  manifestly  unfair  to  deal 
thus  with  a  power  which  the  wisest  of  their  opponents 
remove  altogether  from  the  sphere  of  physical  causation.     It 

221 


222  The  Function  of  Prayer 

is,  perhaps,  equall}-  natural  that  those  whose  deepest  expe- 
rience records  that  prayer  "  availeth  much,"  should  shrink 
fi'om  narrowing  the  area  to  whicli  its  efficacy  extends,  and, 
perceiving  that  the  spiritual  and  physical  forces  are  inter-  » 
related  and  reciprocal,  should  be  jealous  of  any  encroach- 
ment from  the  physical  side.  But  it  is  as  unphilosophical 
for  the  spiritualist  to  thrust  within  the  province  of  the 
naturalist  a  power  which  is  unchallengeable  within  its  own 
sphere,  as  it  is  for  the  naturalist  to  slight  a  force  the  ratio- 
nale of  which  escapes  his  ph3'sical  tests. 

The  controvei'sy  resembles  that  which  has  lasted  from  the 
dawn  of  speculation  between  the  intuitionalists  and  experi- 
mentalists ;  in  which  the  disciples  of  both  schools  are  reluc- 
tant to  concede  the  full  value  of  the  data  in  which  the 
counter- theory  takes  its  rise.  It  is,  indeed,  but  a  subordi- 
nate phase  of  the  same  controversy,  kindred,  in  this  respect, 
to  that  which  divides  the  advocates  of  evolution  from  those 
who  believe  in  successive  incursions  of  creative  force.  The 
success  which  has  attended  the  labors  of  naturalists  in 
accounting  for  the  origin  of  species  by  "  natural  selection," 
has  induced  them  to  extend  the  operation  of  the  law  to  the 
intellectual  and  moral  nature  of  man,  where  (though  it 
explains  subordinate  phenomena),  in  the  presence  of  free- 
will, it  breaks  down.  "While  the  discussion  is  exhilarating, 
and  the  whole  controversy-  a  stimulus  to  patient  and  accurate 
research,  collision  between  the  two  schools  is  philosophically 
illegitimate,  and  fruitless  of  result.     In  the  one  system,  we 


in  the  Economy  of  the  Universe.  223 

see  the  spkitual  protest  of  the  reason  and  the  conscience 
against  the  domination  of  material  law  and  the  paralyzing 
sense  of  necessity,  but,  in  alliance  with  it,  a  frequent  vague- 
ness of  statement,  the  airiness  of  mj^sticism,  and  occasion- 
ally an  indifference  to  facts.  In  the  other,  we  experience 
the  healthful  recoil  of  the  scientific  mind  against  all  rash 
ontolog3',  and  alleged  but  unverifiable  data,  but,  along  with 
it,  the  frequent  collapse  of  that  spiritual  instinct  which  leads 
behind  the  barriers  of  physical  sequence.  It  is  the  part 
of  a  wise  eclecticism  to  attempt  a  reconciliation  between  the 
opposite  schools,  and,  in  the  question  at  present  brought  to 
the  front  (the  validit}'  of  pra3'er) ,  to  vindicate  against  the 
physicist  its  function  in  the  economj'  of  Nature,  and,  against 
the  ultra-spiritualist,  to  maintain  the  invariability'  of  natural 
laws,  and  the  in-everence  of  human  entreaty  for  any  inter- 
ference with  these.  It  is  a  blot  upon  our  civilization,  that, 
in  the  conduct  of  this  controversy,  there  h&p  been  so  much 
heat  and  acrimony,  and  a  lack  of  comprehensive  fairness  on 
either  side. 

No  one,  even  slightly  acquainted  with  scientific  methods 
and  results,  can,  for  a  moment,  brook  the  idea  of  axiy  inter- 
ference with  the  laws  of  external  nature  produced  by  human 
prayer.  We  may  add,  that  (be  our  knowledge  of  science 
virtually  nil)  we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  the  amount  of 
physical  force  within  the  universe  is  incapable  either  of 
increase  or  diminution,  but  only  of  endless  modification  ;  ' 
that  the  physical  nexus  between  phenomena,  in  their  cease- 


224  The  Function  of  Prayer 

less  flux  and  reflux,  is  never  broken ;  while  the  order  in 
which  the  phenomena  appear  is  governed  by  the  rigor  of  ada- 
mantine law.  The  links  of  the  chain  of  physical  sequence 
continue  to  lengthen  out  interminably,  connecting  the  past 
with  the  present,  and  uniting  the  present  to  the  future 
infallibly.  Catastrophe,  the  breaking  of  the  chain,  is 
simpl3'  inconceivable.  And,  so  far  as  we  can  think  of  the 
complex  economy  of  Nature  as  a  series  of  pre-arrangements, 
they  have  been  adjusted  each  to  each  with  the  completest 
mastery  of  all  possible  emergencies.  Were  they  ever  altered 
at  the  suggestion  of  a  creature,  either  they  were  imperfect 
before  the  suggestion  was  made,  or  they  were  made  less 
perfect  by  means  of  it.  If  previously  perfect,  the  change 
would  be  undivine  ;  and,  if  not  perfect  until  the  change,  Ave 
could  with  difficulty  believe  in  the  perfection  of  Him  who 
made  it. 

This  conception  of  the  absolute  fixity-  of  physical  law  is  I 
one  which  the  progress  of  science  has  made  axiomatic.  Be- 
lief in  an  all-comprehending  Intelligence,  which  saw  "  the 
end  from  the  beginning,"  and  "  determined  beforehand  " 
the  history  of  ever}'  inorganic  atom,  and  the  evolution  of 
each  sentient  structure,  is  a  postulate  of  rational  theolog}' ;  ' 
and  that,  in  the  guidance  of  the  universe,  its  great  Superin- 
tendent acts  according  to  laws  "  set  up  from  everlasting"  is 
no  less  axiomatic.  Tlie  more  vehement  opponents  of  this 
doctrine  boldly  challenge  the  datum  from  which  it  starts ; 
viz.,  the  invariabilitj"  of  material  law.     They  say  that  it  is 


in  the  Economy  of  the   Universe.  225 

an  unproved,  and,  therefore,  an  unscientific  assertion  ;  that  ' 
the  sequences  which  seem  to  us  invarialjle  are  so  necessaril3\ 
Let  us  grant  that  the  invariability  is  not  "  in  the  nature  of 
things."  The  calm  rejoinder  of  the  physicist  is,  "  We  have 
no  scientific  experience  to  warrant  the  belief  that  Nature's 
sequences  ever  are  variable;"  and,  mere  experience  taken 
as  our  guide,  the  solution  of  the  question  on  both  sides  would 
be  easy.  The  efficacy  of  prayer  to  quicken  and  exalt,  to 
change  the  character,  and  elevate  human  life,  is  a  fact  of  I 
consciousness.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have,  now-a-days, 
no  instance  of  the  suspension  of  physical  law  in  answer  to 
praj'er.  Alike  in  the  physical  and  moral  region,  the  causal 
nexus  is  inviolate.  In  both,  it  is  always  as  a  man  sows,  that 
he  reaps.  If  he  injures  his  physical  frame,  he  reaps  the 
consequence  in  physical  detriment :  if  he  impairs  his  moral 
power  and  spiritual  vision,  he  gathers  the  harvest  of  moral 
degeneracyT:  But  there  is  no  confusion  of  the  spheres  of 
moral  and  physical  agency.  To  put  it  otherwise,  a  spiritual  * 
antecedent  will  not  produce  a  physical  consequent.  The 
exercise  of  the  religious  function  of  prayer  cannot  directly 
eflfect  any  material  change.  It  is  the  appeal  of  spirit  to 
spirit,  conducted  within  the  spiritual  sphere,  for  pui'poses  1 
that  are  strictly  supra-natural. 

It  is  vain  to  reply  that  we  are  continually  interfering  with 
the  seemingly  fixed  laws  of  the  universe,  and  altering  their 
destination  by  our  voluntary  activities,   or  scientific  appli-  1 
ances  ;  for,  in  all  such  cases,  we  simply  make  use  of  existing 

15 


2  26  Tlie  Function  of  Prayer 

forces.  We  are  ourselves  a  part  of  the  ph3-sical  cosmos ; 
and,  in  accordance  with  its  laws,  we  exei't  a  power  which 
changes  external  nature.  But  we  can  never  escape  from  the 
domain  of  law.  Our  act,  were  we  to  attempt  it,  would  ' 
itself  be  a  link  in  the  chain  of  phenomenal  sequence.  The 
very  moment  we  put  it  forth,  as  agents  in  a  phenomenal 
world,  that  instant  the  energy  we  exert  (itself  determined 
b}'  prior  influence)  enters  as  a  new  element  into  the  vast 
chain  of  ph^'sical  causation.  In  short,  we  can  only  change 
the  existing  order  by  the  exercise  of  a  power  which  is  itself  ' 
a  part  of  that  order,  and  whose  ever}'  movement  is  regulated 
by  law. 

The  extremely  vague  manner  in  which  those  who  imagine 
that  pra^'er  can  directly  alter  the  sequences  of  Nature  state 
their  case,  is  in  the  last  degree  unscientific.  Thus  it  is 
said.  May  not  God,  who  is  sovereign  and  free,  direct  the 
forces  of  Nature  in  one  direction  rather  than  another,  in 
reply  to  the  free  entreaty  of  a  creature  whom  he  encourages 
to  pray?  and  the  atmosi:)heric  phenomena  are  supposed  to 
be  peculiarly  amenable  to  such  "  direction."  Suppose,  then, 
that,  after  a  period  of  dry  Aveather,  prayer  is  offered,  and  rain 
begins  to  fall,  will  the  theologian  venture  to  den}-  that  there 
was  as  exact  an  order  in  the  ph3'sical  antecedents  as  there 
Avould  have  been,  had  no  prayer  been  offered?  W\\\  he 
hazard  the  assertion,  that  there  was  a  break  in  the  nexus 
between  the  descent  (jf  tlie  rain  and  the  physical  causes 
which  produced  it ;  that  a  spiritual   agency,  exerted  by  the 


in  the  Economy  of  the   Universe.  227 

petitioner,  has  become  the  cause  of  the  atmospheric  change 
(the  condensation  of  the  cloud,  and  the  descent  of  the  rain) 
at  a  particular  spot  and  a  special  time  ?  The  crude  notion 
seems  to  be  widel}^  entertained,  that  because  the  changes  of 
the  weather  are  apparently  capricious,  the  wind  blowing 
"as  it  listeth,"  it  may  be  sent  forth  on  special  errands  in 
answer  to  human  entreaty.  Is  not  this  the  polj^theistic 
notion  of  Eolus,  with  the  winds  in  his  fists  ?  It  is  supposed 
that  the  destination  of  a  ph3'sical  force  can  be  arrested,  and 
the  otherwise  inevitable  result  prevented,  by  an  act  of 
divine  volition.  But  the  antecedent  must  spend  itself,  and 
determine  some  consequent.  It  simpl}'  cannot  be  arrested, 
or  lifted  out  of  its  place  amongst  the  links  of  phj'sical  causa- 
tion, without  the  whole  chain  falling  to  pieces.  Its  efficiency 
in  giving  rise  to  1  new  sequence  is  involved  in  its  very 
existence;  while  the  discovery  of  the  correlation  and  trans- 
mutation of  the  forces  proves  that  the  prior  agent  is  still 
])resent,  and  operative  under  an  altered  form. 

But  it  is  said,  that,  while  the  chain  of  physical  sequence 
remains  unbroken,  the  local  incidence  (if  we  may  so  speak) 
of  each  link  ma}"  be  determined  by  some  ethereal  wave  of 
hyper-physical  energy,  transmitted  along  the  entire  line,  from 
its  fountain-head,  in  delicately  subtle  undulations,  resembling 
the  waves  of  light  and  sound,  or  the  flash  of  electricity 
through  a  telegraph-wire  ;  and  that  the  course  of  this  hyper-  ' 
physical  energ}^  maj^  be  determined  in  answer  to  the  prayers 
of  man.     This   assertion   has  all  the  characteristics  of  an 


228  The  Function  of  Prayer 

hypothesis  devised  to  escape  from  the  horns  of  a  dilemma.  - 
It  is  not  supposed  to  apply  to  the  whole  domain  of  Nature, 
but  only  to  a  part  of  it ;  since  no  one  would  pretend  that  the 
rotation  of  the  seasons  was  thus  determined.  Yet  the 
fluctuations  of  the  weather  between  two  seconds  of  time  are 
as  rigorously  determined  by  law  as  are  the  larger  successions 
of  the  seasons ;  and  to  imagine  that  the  Supreme  Power 
would  thus  isolate  some  physical  events  from  the  rest  is 
inconceivable.  It  would  introduce  the  most  arbitrary 
casualism  in  place  of  the  orderliness  of  law.  Again  :  suppose 
that  there  be  no  physical  "  fountain-head,"  but  an  endless 
cycle  of  recurrent  energ}- ;  and  what  becomes  of  the  h3-pothe- 
sis  ?  Further  :  what  purpose  would  this  hj- per-physical  wave 
subserve,  that  is  not  already  and  better  accomplished  in  the 
ordinary  causation  of  the  universe?  Again  :  the  introduction 
of  this  casual  element,  overruling  and  deflecting  some 
phenomena  of  Nature  (much  as  the  free  volitions  of  a  man 
determine  the  sequences  of  his  acts) ,  would  infallibly  dis- 
turb the  rest,  and  introduce  bewildering  chaos.  For,  though 
hyper-physical  in  its  origin  and  character,  the  effect  it  is 
said  to  produce  is  not  hyper-physical  (in  that  case  we  sliould 
have  no  controversy  with  its  advocates) ,  but  physical ;  and 
it  is  believed  to  give  rise  to  an  interminable  series  of  fresh 
phj^sical  results.  That  it  should  be  in  the  power  of  an}' 
creature  thus  to  launch  a  new  agency  almost  at  will  into  the 
pre-arranged  system  of  Nature,  and  thereb}'  to  begin  a  series 
of  changes  which  are  absolutely  interminable  in  their  effect, 


in  the  Economy  of  the   Universe.  229 

is  simply  incredible.  Lastly,  we  have  no  experimental 
evidence  of  this  subtle  wave  of  influence,  or  of  its  results, 
from  which  we  might  infer  a  cause.  It  is  an  unverified 
hj'pothesis  at  the  best. 

Setting  it  aside,  therefore,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  human  pra3'er  has  no  validity  as  a  force  directly  work- 
ing within  the  domain  of  physical  nature.  To  pray  for  fine 
weather,  or  for  rain  (except  as  a  humble  expression  of  man's 
dependence  upon  forces  that  are  vaster  than  he,  and  upon 
Him  from  whom  they  emaaate) ,  is  quite  as  illegitimate  as 
it  is  to  pray  against  the  approach  of  winter,  the  return  of 
summer,  or  even  against  to-morrow's  sunrise.  If  the  rain 
we  ask  for  is  needful  in  our  particular  district,  in  the  ulti- 
mate and  general  economy  of  Nature  it  will  fall  in  due 
course.  If  it  does  not  do  so,  it  is  simply  because  it,  or  its 
physical  equivalents,  have  been  required  elsewhere  in  the 
balance  of  that  supreme  economy.  To  desire  its  local 
cessation  when  it  seems  excessive,  or  its  local  presence 
when  there  is  a  drought,  is  the  mere  impulse  of  human 
selfishness,  anxious  to  possess  the  most  desirable  things  in 
one's  immediate  neighborhood  (and  ignorant  of  what  these 
really  are),  forgetting  that  the  Administrator  of  the  universe 
has  to  consider  the  greatest  good  of  the  whole  number  ;  that 
he  is  superintending  the  whole  economy  of  Nature,  in  which 
the  apparent  bane  of  one  district  is  the  blessing  of  another, 
while  he  is  devoid  of  favoritism  ;  and  that  these  terms, 
"bane"  and  '■'blessing,"  have  reall}-  no  meaning  to  the 
ph3'sical  universe  at  large. 


230  The  Function  of  Prayer 

But  we  are  repeatedly  told  by  theologians  that  an  answer 
to  praj-er  within  the  ph^'sical  realm  is  a  sign  of  the  divine 
presence,  helpful  to  the  suppliant's  faith.  Is  this  a  worthy 
conception  of  God's  relation  to  the  universe,  that  he,  every 
now  and  then,  interferes  with  his  established  order  to  prove 
his  own  supremacy?  that  he  interrupts  the  working  of  his 
machine,  to  prove  that  he  is  there  behind  it,  and  has  power 
to  alter  Nature,  or  to  grant  the  requests  of  his  creatures  ? 
Is  not  such  a  notion  the  offspring  of  the  very  rudest  anthro- 
pomorphism? It  is  difficult  to  imagine  a  poorer  idea  of 
divine  revelation  than  is  implied  in  such  arbitrariness.  To 
those  who  think  it  gracious  condescension,  it  may  be  replied, 
that  it  would  be  quite  as  significant  of  caprice.  It  is 
supposed,  that  having  created  a  tiny  creature,  and  brought 
him  into  the  midst  of  the  universal  order  (a  creature  that 
scarcely  ever  comprehends  the  meaning  of  that  order) ,  the 
supreme  Artificer  finds  it  expedient  continually  to  announce 
himself  by  an  alteration  of  the  course  and  destination  of 
phenomena  at  the  unenlightened  (it  may  be  the  selfish)  call 
of  that  creature,  and  that  he  does  so  while  at  the  same 
time  his  presence  is  ceaselesslj'  revealed  within  everj-  pulse 
and  movement  of  the  universe.  But  the  XQvy  purport  of 
revelation  (which  is  merely  the  withdrawing  of  a  veil)  is 
not  to  show  the  creature  that  primeval  order  can  be  violated, 
or  that  "the  material  is  subordinate  to  the  spiritual:"  it 
is  to  announce  the  fact,  that  the  spiritual  lies  abidingly 
within  the  material  as  its  underlying  essence.     And,  while 


in  the  Economy  of  the   Universe.  231 

this  is  the  philosophical  notion,  is  it  not,  also,  the  biblical 
idea  of  the  i-elation  which  God  sustains  to  the  cosmos  ?  We 
have  no  evidence  that  the  writers  of  our  sacred  books 
regarded  the  power  which  manifested  itself  to  them  in 
unusual  ways,  as  different  from  that  of  which  we  see  a  daily 
apocalypse  in  the  material  world.  So  far  from  this,  these 
writers  uniforml}'  speak  of  all  natural  phenomena  as  the 
direct  outcome  of  divine  agency.  God  "  walks  on  the  wings 
of  the  winds,"  the  clouds  are  "  his  chariot ;  "  "  his  voice  " 
is  heard  when  it  thundereth,  and  so  forth.  To  the  Hebrew 
prophets  and  psalmists,  at  least,  the  supernatural  was  the 
power  which  works  through  the  natural  order,  of  which  all 
the  forces  of  the  universe  are  manifestations  to  men. 

But  there  is  a  farther  question  to  which  the  physicist  may 
validly  demand  an  answer.  All  men  instinctively  abstain 
from  presuming  to  ask  God  for  certain  things  within  the 
physical  sphere ;  for  example,  for  constant  daylight,  for 
perpetual  summer,  for  phj^sical  immortality,  or  for  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  physicist  asks  us,  Why  do  we 
abstain  from  such  requests,  but  because  we  find  that  they 
are  contrary'  to  the  laws  of  Nature,  that  their  occurrence 
would  in'V'olve  the  absolute  overthro^:  of  the  existing  cosmi- 
cal  order?  And  he  is  equally  entitled  to  press  for  an  answer 
to  the  question,  Wh}-  should  we  draw  a  line,  and  exclude 
any  ph^-sical  phenomena  whatsoever  from  the  category-  of 
the  fixed  and  predetermined?  B3'  degrees  we  learn  to  in- 
clude all  that  seems  at  first  anomalous  witMn  the  majestic 


232  The  Function  of  Prayer 

sweep  of  predetermined  law.  And  is  it  not  in  exact  propor- 
tion to  our  ignorance  of  what  is  fixed,  that  we  make  it  the 
subject  of  our  petitions?  Religious  men  do  not  praj^  for 
eternal  sunshine  or  for  physical  immortality.  Why  ?  Sim- 
ply because  they  recognize  that  such  would  be  contrary  to 
the  tvill  of  God  as  revealed  in  the  laivs  of  external  Nature; 
and  it  rests  with  them  to  prove  that  one  single  physical 
event  may  validly  be  excluded  from  the  list  of  the  prede- 
termined, before  they  call  on  us  to  pray  with  reference  to  it. 
We  are  bound  to  reply  to  this  appeal  of  the  naturalist. 

Meanwhile  there  is  another  objection  that  is  fatal  to  this 
habit  of  praj'er  for  things  that  are  purel}'  physical.  It  dis- 
torts the  petitioner's  idea  of  the  moral  character  of  God, 
leading  him,  almost  invariably,  to  imagine  that  special  catas- 
trophes are  signs  of  displeasure,  calling  for  confession  of  sin, 
and -repentance.  A  season  of  unusual  cold  and  rain,  resulting 
in  a  bad  harvest  and  threatened  famine  ;  or  a  winter  of  pro- 
longed storm,  strewing  our  shores  with  wrecked  vessels  and 
wasted  cargoes  ;  or  a  time  of  cattle-plague  ;  or  an  outbreak 
of  cholera,  —  these  are  regarded  as  marks  of  the  general 
displeasure  of  Heaven,  calling  for  general  confession  of  sin, 
and  prayer  for  the  lessening  or  removal  of  such  disaster. 
Men  do  this,  and  3'et  call  their  ancestors  irrational,  because 
they  prayed  against  eclipses,  and  the  mediaeval  warriors 
foolish  becausQ  they  feared  a  catastrophe  on  the  earth  when 
the  auroral  light  was  colored  in  the  sky.  In  both  cases  it  is 
to  cower  with  craven  hearts  as  before  a  capricious  Deity. 


in  the  Economy  of  the    Universe.         233 

The  habit  of  mind  it  induces  is  disastrous  to  piety  and  even 
to  sincerity  ;  and  there  is  often  mere  arbitrariness,  as  well  as 
spiritual  unrealitj^  in  the  appointment  of  humiliation  days 
for  bad  harvests  or  the  presence  of  a  plague.  It  would  be 
more  rational  to  appoint  a  fixed  hour  for  humiliation,  to 
last  the  whole  year  round,  for  the  thousand  human  miseries 
that  are  more  acute  and  terrible  than  the  loss  of  crops,  or 
death  of  cattle,  or  winter  wrecks,  or  the  incursions  of  pesti- 
lence, can  ever  be.  Even  the  most  ignorant  of  those  who 
observe  such  da3-s  do  not  regard  the  calamitous  events  as 
judgments  for  special  sins.  The  divine  words  touching  the 
Tower  of  Siloam  have  dissipated  that  idea,  at  least  for 
Christendom.  But  it  is  judged  expedient,  when  disaster 
overtakes  a  nation  or  a  community,  to  make  some  confession 
of  sin  in  general,  and,  in  conjunction  with  it,  to  pray  for  the 
removal  of  the  calamity.  Now,  so  far  as  it  can  be  obviated 
or  lessened  by  human  action,  prudence,  foresight,  and  con- 
formity to  the  laws  of  Nature,  man  ma}'  validly  pray  to  be 
enabled  to  put  forth  that  foresight  and  sagacity,  and  to  con- 
form to  these  laws.  jBut,  in  so  far  as  the  disaster  is  due  to 
causes  with  which  he  cannot  interfere,  it  is  illegitimate  in 
him  to  pra}'  for  their  removal./  His  obvious  duty,  then,  is  to 
acquiesce  in  the  will  of  the  Supreme.  If  he  prays  as  he 
should,  it  must  be  simply  for  the  spirit  of  submission.  Even 
in  the  former  case,  it  is  only  indirectly  that  he  may  pray  for 
the  removal  of  a  pestilence.  He  ma}-  ask  for  wisdom  to  cope 
with  it,  for  a  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  health,  and  for  ability 


234  The  Function  of  Prayer 

to  conform  to  these ;  inasmuch  as  unconscious  aid  is  often 
vouchsafed  to  the  will  of  the  agent  who  is  striving  to  observe 
them.  Doubtless  this  is  often  involved  in  petitions  for  the 
removal  of  existing  evil ;  but  it  is  as  commonly  ignored  in 
the  selfish  longing  for  some  ' '  special  Providence  ' '  which 
may  sweep  the  pestilence  away. 

But  there  is  superficiality,  as  well  as  irreverence,  in  the 
easily-uttered  cry  for  deliverance,  which  frequently  dulls  the 
edge  of  practical  endeavor  to  remove  the  evil,  and  conform 
to  the  neglected  law,  expressive  of  the  divine  will.  There 
is  irreverence  in  it,  implying  a  distrust  of  the  absoluteness  of 
the  divine  wisdom  and  love  ;  and  it  is  altogether  irrational, 
if  ofiered  up  in  opposition  to  the  clear  evidence  of  experi- 
ence that  it  is  fruitless,  and  that  God  does  not  thus  gratify 
wishes  which  maj^  be  the  mere  caprices  of  his  creatures. 
Doubtless  the  undertone  of  all  devout  prayer  is,  "  Not  my 
will,  but  thine,  be  done;"  that  is  to  saj-,  the  petitioner 
confesses  his  ignorance  of  what  ought  to  be,  and  rejoices  in 
the  surrender  of  his  wishes.  But, "in  addition  to  this  ac- 
knowledged undertone,  if  God  reveals  the  fact  that  his  will 
is  done  through  the  laws  he  has  established,  is  it  not 
supreme  irreverence  in  man,  craving  for  a  "  sign  and  a 
wonder,"  to  cry  out  for  something  more?  It  is  blasphemous 
to  imagine  that  God  ever  lyiolatesya  law.  The  only  violation 
of  law  of  which  we  can  form  an}''  conception  is  its  non-obser- 
vance by  an  agent  who  can  and  should  obey  it.  And,  in 
reference  to  that,  he  may  always  pray  for  strength  patiently 
to  conform  to  the  eternal  order. 


in  the  Economy  of  the   Universe.         235 

Conceding  all  this  (and  that  not  reluctantly) ,  because  it 
is  in  conformity  with  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  also  with 
the  "  sweet  reasonableness"  of  Christianity,  we  must  also 
vindicate,  against  those  who  impugn  it,  the  function  and 
the  no  less  "  sweet  reasonableness  "  of  prayer,  as  a  spiritual 
fact  within  the  economy  of  Nature.  It  is  unfortunate  that 
our  modern  physicists  do  not  begin  their  inquiry  into  the 
rationale  of  pra3^er  by  testing  its  value  within  the  spiritual 
domain.  Thej'  might  disarm  hostility  to  the  doctrine  the}'' 
teach  touching  phj^sical  nature,  were  they  to  recognize  in 
spiritual  prayer,  not  a  mere  "potent  supplement"  to  the 
religious  life,  but  the  very  pulse  of  that  life  itself.  Now,  it 
is  incorrect  to  sa}^  that  prayer  is  ever  regarded  by  its  advo- 
cates as  a  "  form  of  physical  energ}'^,"  unless  as  a  loose 
figure  of  speech,  that  is  simply  a  travesty  of  what  is  held  by 
all  rational  theologians.  Prayer  is  always  believed  (even 
by  the  most  illiterate)  to  be  a  spiritual  power,  the  exercise 
of  which  determines  the  acts  of  the  spiritual  Power  above, 
which,  in  its  turn,  accomplishes  a  change  amongst  phenom- 
ena. This  may  be  erroneous  ;  and  it  is  for  the  naturalist 
to  combat  it,  if  ho  is  scientificallj'  able  to  do  so.  But  our 
physicists  say  they  "  cannot  express  their  repugnance  at  the 
notion  that  Supreme  Intelligence  and  Wisdom  can  be  influ- 
enced by  the  suggestions  of  any  human  mind,  however 
great."  Is  not  this  totall}^  to  deny  the  validity  of  prayer 
by  an  absolute  assertion  to  the  contrary?  We  are  informed 
that  modern  science  contends  only  for  "  tlie  displacement" 


236  The  Function  of  Prayer 

of  prayer,  not  for  its  "  extinction."  But,  when  we  ask  what  { 
is  the  value  attached  to  it  within  its  own  domain,  we 
receive  this  very  vague  reply,  "  that  in  some  form  or  other, 
not  yet  evident,  prayer  may,  as  alleged,  be  necessary  to 
man's  highest  culture."  It  is  a  peradventure,  at  the  best. 
It  may  be  of  use,  and  that  only  as  a  means  towards  "man's 
highest  culture,"  and  that  in  a  way  "not  yet  evident." 
Do  the  accumulated  experiences  of  the  ages,  then,  go  for 
nothing  on  these  points,  —  that  the  prayer  of  the  right- 
eous "  availeth  much  ;  "  that  it  is  the  opening  of  a  window 
to  the  supernatural ;  and  that,  while  a  devout  man  prays,  his 
spirit  is  touched  from  above  to  finest  spiritual  issues?  Have 
all  religious  men  who  have  prayed  for  inward  light,  quick- 
ening, and  help,  and  believed  that  they  were  listened  to,  no 
claim  to  be  heard  as  witnesses  in  favor  of  a  fact  which  is 
dim  to  the  scientific  eye  ? 

We  maintain  that  the  true  spirit  and  function  of  prayer 
are  purely  spiritual  (though,  in  one  important  respect,  the 
results  of  pra3'er  tend  out  beyond  that  region)  ;  and  that  it 
is  in  the  spiritual  freedom  of  man,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
eternal  freedom  of  God,  on  the  other,  that  we  find  its 
rationale.  The  being  and  the  moral  character  of  God, 
must,  of  course,  be  taken  for  granted  in  any  discussion  as 
to  the  function  of  prayer.  To  every  theor}^  of  the  universe 
that  dispenses  with  his  existence,  or  merges  it  in  Nature, 
prayer  is  manifestly  an  excrescence.  It  might  still  be  an 
impressive  utterance  of  the  soul  in  moments  of  sorrow,  or 


in  the  Economy  of  the   Universe.  237 

tragic  loss,  or  even  of  triumph,  —  like  a  stream  chafing 
between  the  rocky  barriers  of  its  course  ;  but  it  would  have 
no  rational  ground,  and  could  never  be  a  duty.  It  is  note- 
worthy, however,  that  the  act  of  devotion  arising  out  of  the 
felt  dependence  of  the  creature  is  one  of  the  means  by 
which  the  latent  sense  of  the  divine  presence  may  be  quick- 
ened into  life.  Starting,  then,  with  this  postulate,  —  the 
existence  and  recognizability  of  God,  —  the  raison  d'etre  of 
prayer  is  almost  self-evident.  In  a  sense,  it  is  by  the 
avenue  of  prayer  that  we  come  unto  God,  even  unto  his  seat. 
The  act  of  devotion  leads  the  worshipper  into  his  presence, 
not  as  revealed  in  space  or  time,  or  through  any  represen- 
tative foiTQ,  but  as  the  ever-present  and  eternal  Life.  It  is 
\  but  the  inarticulate  language  of  the  heart,  the  voice  of 
the  spirit,  recognizing  its  own  original.  This  very  power 
of  recognition,  however,  implies  superiority  to  the  uncon- 
scious forces  of  the  material  world.  Had  we  no  free 
spiritual  power  within  us,  diiferentiating  us  from  surround- 
ing existence,  we  could  not  "  come  into  "  God's  presence  in 
the  act  of  devotion ;  for  surely,  in  that  presence,  man,  as 
well  as  unconscious  nature,  always  stands.  But,  endowed 
with  intelligence  and  spiritual  freedom,  he  may,  by  an  act 
either  of  the  will  or  of  simple  aspiration,  present  his  spirit 
to  the  divine,  withdrawing  it  from  the  sphere  of  the 
sensuous,  and  subjecting  it  to  the  influence  of  the  super- 
sensible. And  the  divine  nature  may  then  act  upon  the 
human  to  quicken  and  exalt,  directly   "  endowing  it  with 


238  The  Function  of  Prayer 

power  from  on  high."  In  the  conscious  freedom  of  our  own 
wills  we  recognize  a  power,  irreducible  by  analysis,  which 
proclaims  our  superiority  to  the  links  of  physical  causation, 
while  it  acts  in  unbroken  harmony  with  these.  It  testifies, 
that,  in  our  inmost  essence,  we  are  not  the  mere  products  of 
organizing  force,  but  that  we  have  (to  use  the  Kantian 
terms)  natures  noumenally  free,  and  therefore  noumenally 
related  to  God.  The  sphere  of  pi'ayer  is,  therefore,  the  life 
of  the  creature  endowed  with  moral  freedom  and  the 
capacities  of  spiritual  growth.  Its  value  to  the  individual 
consists  in  the  impulse  it  conveys  to  the  inmost  energies  of 
the  soul  in  their  ascent  and  progress.  By  a  direct  divine 
afflatus,  it  tends,  when  it  is,  in  Pauline  phrase,  "  prayer 
with  the  spirit  and  with  the  understanding  also,"  to  clarify 
the  intellect,  and  to  elevate  the  heart,  to  rectify  the  bias 
of  the  passions,  to  strengthen  the  conscience,  and  discipline 
the  will,  and  to  foster  all  the  virtues.  Are  these  results  to  ^' 
be  slighted,  because  the  power  which  eflfects  them  is  inoper- 
ative in  external  nature?  In  that  outer  region  all  is 
orderly  and  fair ;  but,  in  the  region  of  the  spiritual,  there  is 
conscious  disorder,  moral  chaos,  which  is  at  once  an 
evidence  of  the  need,  and  a  vindication  of  the  reasonable- 
ness, of  an  interference  with  it.  Since,  then,  it  can  be 
altered  for  the  better  (while  phj^sical  nature  cannot) ,  and  since 
the  alteration  of  this  internal  world  is  accomplished  by  the 
efforts  of  a  man's  free  will,  while  God  works  in  it,  and  is 
impossible,  in  its  highest  phases,  without  help  and  co-oper- 


in  ihe  Economy  of  the   JJnivenrse.  239 

ation  from  him,  why  should  not  man  petition  for  that  help? 
why  should  he  not  ask  for  the  presence  of  the  Co-operator? 
For  that  is  absolutely  all.  PrayerjuvolYe^s  petition ;  but 
it  is  request  for  nothing  outward.  The  petition  is  but  the 
expression  of  that  hunger  and  thirst  for  the  divine  presence, 
of  which  the  Hebrew  psalmists  write  with  such  passionate 
ardors,  —  the  longing  for  perfection,  the  desire  to  escape 
from  fell  disorder,  and  conform  to  the  order  of  everlasting 
right,  with  absolute  submission  to  the  will  of  the  Eternal. 
Thus  the  act  of  prayer  is  the  very  key  to  the  kingdom  of 
God.  We  cannot  dispense  with  it  without  discarding  all 
worship  whatsoever,  all  recognition  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
or  of  "  the  power  which  makes  for  righteousness  "  in  the 
world.  If  religion  be  the  recognition  of,  and  allegiance 
to,  the  personal  and  ever-present  God,  a  man  cannot  be 
religious,  and  neglect  devotion.  He  may  be  modest, 
reverent,  humble,  full  of  admiration,  or  awestruck  before 
the  mysteries  and  sublimities  of  the  universe  ;  but  religious, 
in  the  sense  above  defined,  he  cannot  be. 

We  are  told,  however,  by  all  agnostic  teachers,  that  this 
is  a  mistake  ;  that  the  essence  of  religion  is  the  recognition 
of  m3'ster3',  the  essential  element  of  prayer  being  a  feeling 
of  wonder  and  admiration  in  presence  of  resistless  force, 
unerring  wisdom,  and  everlasting  power.  As  our  confidence 
in  the  eternal  order  deepens,  we  are  lifted  to  the  true 
"  Rock  that  is  higher  than  we  ;  "  and  filial  piety  evidences 
itself  by  the  absence  of  any  wish  for  a  change  of  that  which 


240  The  Function  of  Prayer 

is.  Mute  dependence  on  resistless  force,  fearing  no  catas- 
trophe, believing  in  none,  independent  of  all  "means  of 
grace"  and  seasons  of  devotion, — that  is  the  alpha  and 
omega  of  piet}-.  Surely  it  is  the  old  Stoic  fate,  with  its  one 
virtue  of  submission,  under  a  roseate  modern  guise.  To 
work  and  to  wonder,  —  that,  and  that  alone,  is  to  pray. 
"We  are  further  told,  that,  whatever  be  the  wisdom  of  the 
petitioner,  his  knowledge  is  literally  less  than  nothing,  and 
vanity,  to  the  Most  High  ;  and  that  his  ignorance,  breeding 
humility,  forbids  every  petition.  In  short,  the  more  igno- 
rant a  man  is,  the  more  he  will  pray  for  ;  the  more  intelligent 
he  is,  the  less  he  will  pray  for ;  and,  when  his  intelligence 
is  perfected,  he  will  not  pray  at  all. 

It  would  conduce  to  clearness,  and  lessen  the  risks  of 
misrepresentation,  were  we  informed  whether  such  a  sweep- 
ing condemnation  as  the  above  applies  to  all  petitions 
whatsoever,  or  only  to  praj^er  for  physical  well-being,  and 
interferences  with  Nature.  The  opponents  of  prayer  do  not 
sufficiently  recognize  the  fact,  that  very  few,  if  any,  petitions 
are  offered  up  in  an  absolute  and  unsubordinated  manner. 
Even  when  unaccompanied  by  the  express  reservation, 
"  Thy  will  be  done,"  this  is  (as  we  have  remarked)  the 
essential  undertone,  or  suppressed  premise,  in  all  true 
prayer.  It  is  the  unvarying  yet  most  musical  refrain  run- 
ning through  every  song  of  devotion  ;  and,  if  rash  sug- 
gestions touching  the  phj'sical  world  are  occasionally  heard 
from  the  lips  of  rude  though  pious  worshippers,  we  may 


in  the  Economy  of  the  Universe. 

be  sure  that  the  Hearer  of  prayer,  "  unto  whom  all  flesh 
shall  come,"  does  not  despise  the  stammering  speech  due 
to  infancy  of  mind.  Such  stammering,  however,  becomes 
irreverence  in  mental  manhood ;  and  in  this  matter, 
emphatically,  when  "we  become  men,  we  must  put  away 
childish  things." 

We  have  said  that  the  mind  trained  in  the  patient  study 
of  Nature's  processes  learns  gradually  to  include  even  seem- 
ing anomalies  within  the  sweep  of  predetermined  law ;  but, 
if  trained  also  in  reflective  science,  it  asks.  What  constitutes 
'*  a  law"  ?  and  discovers  that  it  is  but  the  expression  of  the 
way  in  which  the  forces  of  the  universe  fulfil  their  mission  ; 
and  that  is,  in  other  words,  to  say,  by  which  the  eternal 
Mechanist  and  Sustainer  works  within  his  own  creation.  ( 
He  is  the  living  pulse  within  the  whole  machinerj^.  of  Nature ; ' 
and  the  laws  of  matter  or  of  mind  are  but  the  indices  of  his 
activity,  the  generalized  expression  or  interpretation  of  the 
way  in  which  the  supreme  Artist,  Builder,  and  Admin- 
istrator, controls  his  own  creation.  So  far  all  is  fixed, 
though  it  is  the  flxit^^  of  unerring  wisdom,  unalterable,  simply 
because  it  is  the  arrangement  of  an  optimist  Ruler.  But, 
■nithin  the  mind  that  contemplates  this  unchallengeable 
order,  there  is  something  that  is  not  fixed.  We  are  con- 
scious of  moral  freedom,  the  autocratic  power  of  self- 
determination,  while  we  are  also  conscious  of  moral 
disorder,  and  the  need  of  rectification.  The  latter  con- 
sciousness impels  the  spirit  instinctively  to  look  bej'ond 
16 


r 


242  The  Function  of  Prayer 

itself  for  aid  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  prompts  it  to  pray  ;  while 
the  former  suggests  the  presence  of  One  who  is  the  source 
of  the  freedom,  and  is  able  to  re-adjust. 

It  is  impossible,  in  this  paper,  to  unfold  the  evidence 
which  our  moral  freedom  bears  to  its  own  Archetype  and 
Original.  But  assuming  the  divine  Existence,  and  the 
resemblance  between  the  human  and  the  divine,  the  corollary 
is  evident  enough.  If  within  the  fountain-head  of  the 
divine  nature,  in  which  the  human  lives  and  has  its  being, 
there  is  a  fulness  of  life  unexhausted  in  the  existing  uni- 
verse, power  in  reserve,  yet  communicable,  prayer  is  but 
the  approach  of  the  human  spirit  to  its  Source,  that  it  may 
receive  the  inspiration  of  that  power.  We  must  admit  the 
existence  of  this  reserve  of  communicable  life  within  the 
divine  essence,  unless  we  hold  that  it  has  exhausted  itself  in 
creation,  or  that  the  moral  fountain-head  is  an  exact 
counterpart  of  a  physical  spring,  and  that  what  issues  from 
it  previously  entered  it  in  an  altered  form  ;  that  is  to  say, 
unless  we  believe  in  the  transmigration  of  souls,  or  their 
re-absorption  in  the  universal  life.  But  if  an  addition  is 
made  to  the  moral  contents  of  the  universe  on  the  appear- 
ance of  every  new  human  life,  there  must  he  this  reservoir 
of  unexhausted  power  within  the  moral  source.  And,  if  it 
exists  in  eternal  wealth  and  communicable  freshness  (its 
most  spiritual  features  suggested  by  the  wells  of  earth,  — 
those  "  fountains  and  depths  that  spring  out  of  valleys  and 
hills  "),  man  may  surely  pray  for  it,  and  xaay  find  it  descend 


in  the  Economy  of  the  Universe.          243 

upon  him,  or,  rather,  rise  up  within  him,  pervading  his 
faculties,  moulding  his  life,  and  replenishing  his  will.  Intel- 
ligent recognition  of  the  ever-present  Mind  is  itself  an  act 
of  prayer.  The  expression  of  such  power  in  the  language 
of  adoration  or"  trust  is  secondary  to  the  act  of  recognition 
itself.  But  no  sooner  does  the  soul  look,  as  through  a 
window  (we  must  speak  in  material  figures),  on  the  super- 
natural, than  desire  to  approach  the  divine  Presence,  and  to 
be  brought  into  harmony  with  it,  instinctively  arises.  And 
that  longing  (of  which  St.  Augustine  has  left  so  noble  a 
record  in  his  "Confessions"),  the  desiderium  of  the  I 
heart,  is  most  truly  the  essence  of  prayer.  It  is  petition  for 
the  loftiest  order  of  .good,  tempered  with  submission,  and 
3'et  prescient  of  success. 

If,  now,  we  are  tcld  by  those  whose  researches  have  con- 
fined them  for  a  lifetime  within  the  tracks  of  physical  law, 
that,  with  this  region  of  "  inner  mysteries,"  they  are  unfamil- 
iar, it  might  be  a  perfectly  valid  and  strictly  philosophical 
rejoinder,  that  they  "  have  faculties  within,  which  they  have 
never  used."  K,  recognizing  the  divine  existence,  they  are 
not  conscious  of  the  stirrings  of  that  instinct  which  prompts 
the  prayer  of  the  devout,  of  that  flagging  of  the  wing  of 
all  endeavor  which  evokes  it  in  some,  or  that  sense  of 
loneliness  which  awakens  the  filial  cry  in  others,  they  are 
not  at  liberty  to  treat  it  either  as  a  weakness  or  an  unpro- 
ductive act,  to  be  banished  from  the  realm  of  scientific 
utilities.     B}'  the  very  conditions  of  the  case,  they  are  pre- 


244  '^^^^  Function  of  Prayer 

eluded  from  pronouncing  on  its  validity,  because  they  can- 
not isolate  the  phenomenon  in  question,  throw  it  into  a 
crucible,  and  subject  it  to  analytic  tests.  It  is  simply  im- 
possible to  bring  the  life  of  the  petitioner  within  the  compass 
of  any  experimental  gauge.  As  has  been  well  remarked, 
' '  we  cannot  enter  into  the  heart  of  those  who  pray,  and  take 
scientific  precautions  lest  the  experiment  be  delusive,  and 
measure  what  was  the  moral  strength  before  the  praj-er,  and 
what  accession  of  strength  has  come  after  it"(F.  New- 
man). Besides,  the  deepest  aspirations  of  the  soul  are  least 
discernible  by  those  who  study  the  process  from  without ; 
and  the  most  intense  replies  —  accessions  of  spiritual  power 
—  are  necessarily  unperceived  by  those  who  merely  watch 
the  current  in  its  flow,  that  they  may  compute  the  volume  of 
its  waters.  They  always  reduce  the  worshipper  to  silence, 
and  breed  reserve.  The  soul  may  be  kindled  to  unwonted 
glow  with  the  inspiration  of  Heaven,  and  may  find  that  the 
words  of  a  litany,  or  the  music  of  a  psalm,  are  the  fittest 
channel  in  which  to  express  itself ;  but  the  power  which  has 
reached  it  from  above  can  never  be  subjected  to  scrutiny  in 
its  origin  or  transit.  The  concession  made  by  the  physicist, 
that  prayer  may  "  strengthen  the  heart  to  meet  life's  losses, 
and  thus  indircctl}^  promote  ph3'sical  well-being,  as  the  dig- 
ging of  -^sop's  orchard  brought  a  treasure  of  fertilit}'-  great- 
er than  the  treasure  sought,"  needs  only  to  be  extended  a 
little  farther  in  the  same  direction  to  warrant  all  we  are 
contending  for.     If,  along  with  the  ' '  wise  passiveness ' '  it 


i7i  the  Economy  of  the   Universe.  245 

breeds,  helping  us  to  bear  the  loss  and  the  defeat,  it  becomes 
an  active  power,  stirring  the  fires  of  devotion,  and  leading 
to  moral  victory,  the  immeasurable  range  of  its  influence 
will  be  conceded,  and  even  a  scientific  truth  discerned  in 
that  "  counsel  of  perfection,"  Ask,  and  ye  shall  receive. 

So  far,  we  may  not  be  challenged  by  any  but  the  dogmatic 
materialist,  or  the  necessitarian,  or  the  agnostic.  But  we 
have  already  raised  the  question.  Is  there  any  thing  beyond 
the  life  or  subjective  experience  of  the  petitioner  that  may 
be  legitimately  sought  in  prayer?  and  have  added,  that,  if 
the  spiritualist  maintains  that  there  is,  he  is  bound  to  define 
that  thing,  or  class  of  things,  with  rigorous  precision,  and 
to  show  the  reasonableness  of  his  act.  The  character  of 
the  class  in  question  is  easily  defined.  It  might  be  thought, 
that  as  the  popular  adage  puts  it,  "  Man's  extremity  is 
God's  opportunity,"  the  class  would  be  that  to  which  human 
efficiency  does  not  extend.  It  is  precisely  the  reverse^ 
Whatever  may  be  accomplished  by  human  instrumentality/ 
within  the  physical  domain  may  be  a  subject  of  petition,! 
inasmuch  as  prayer  may  originate  a  movement  which  tends/ 
outward  from  the  will  of  the  agent,  and  indirectly  accom-1 
plishes  these  results.  I  This  admission  is  in  full  consistence 
with  our  primary  statement,  that  the  sphere  of  prayer  is 
wholly  spiritual ;  for  the  area  in  which  the  answer  is  vouch- 
safed is  the  life  of  the  petitioner  (or  of  those  for  whom  he 
prays) ,  where  the  will  of  the  Supreme  may  freely  move  the 
natures  underneath  its  touch.     Thus  in  asking  for  deliver- 


246  The  Function  of  Prayer 

ance  in  a  time  of  peril,  the  really  devout  heart  will  pray 
(though  perhaps  unconsciously),  not  for  interference  with 
existing  order,  but  for  help  to  enable  it  to  conform  to  that 
order.  And  it  may  pray  for  the  result,  without  alluding  to 
the  instrumentality ;  just  as  we  set  down  a  contraction,  or  a 
short-hand  sign,  for  a  full  word. 

To  take  two  simple  instances.  We  pray  for  a  friend's 
life  that  seems  endangered.  Such  prayer  can  never  be  an 
influential  element  in  arresting  the  physical  course  of  disease 
by  one  iota ;  but  it  may  bring  a  fresh  suggestion  to  the 
mind  of  a  physician,  or  other  attendant,  to  adopt  a  remedy, 
which,  by  natural  means,  "  turns  the  tide"  of  ebbing  life, 
and  determines  the  recovery  of  the  patient.  Or  we  praj-  |br 
the  removal  of  a  pestilence  ;  and  the  answer  is  given-' within 
the  minds  and  hearts  of  those  who  take  means  to  check  it  or 
uproot  it.  The  latent  power  that  lies  within  the  free  cau- 
sality of  man  may  be  stimulated  and  put  in  motion  from  a 
point  beyond  the  chain  of  ph3'sical  sequence ;  and  crises 
innumerable  may  be  averted  through  human  praj'er,  thus 
dislodging  a  spiritual  force  that  slumbers,  and  sending 
it  beneficently  forth  from  its  "  hiding-place  of  power." 
Nevertheless,  it  will  always  be  exceedingly  unsafe  to  infer, 
from  the  observation  of  results,  that  an}'  such  dislodgement 
has  taken  place.  For,  in  the  first  place,  there  will  alwaj'S 
be  a  larger  number  of  petitions  oflTered  up  for  recover}'  than 
are  ever  granted ;  and,  secondly,  there  will  be  many  more 
coincidences    between  prayer   and  recovery  that  have    no 


in  the  Economy  of  the  Universe.  247 

causal  connection.  Restoration  may  begin  immediately 
after  praj'er ;  but  it  would  be  extremely  rash  to  infer  that  the 
former  was  a  consequence  of  the  latter.  Suppose  a  case  in 
which  prayer  is  offered,  and  there  is  no  subsequent  interfer- 
ence b}^  man  in  any  way,  and  the  patient  recovers,  it  would 
be  sheer  assumption  to  affirm  that  the  prayer  had  caused  the 
cure.  Even  were  it  able  directlj'  to  affect  the  physical  chain 
of  antecedents  and  consequents  (which  it  is  not) ,  it  would  be 
impossible,  in  any  single  case,  to  know  that  it  had  done  so. 
As  in  the  case  of  spiritual  response,  we  cannot  insulate  the 
phenomena  one  from  another  so  as  to  apply  an  experimental 
test.  There  is  manifestl}^  no  scope  for  inductive  science  to 
an  invisible  agency  which  eludes  observation :  therefore,  we 
believe  that  answers  to  prayer  touching  things  physical  are 
only  possible  when  effected  through  the  agenc}'  and  instru- 
mentality of  man ;  and  even  then,  we  can  never  know  how 
far  they  have  or  have  not  been  granted.  It  is  easy  to 
perceive  the  reason  of  this  inability,  and  also  to  see  the 
mischievous  results  which  would  ensue  were  such  knowledge 
ours. 

There  is  another  aspect  in  which  prayer  for  physical  re- 
sults may  be  regarded,  though  no  reply  is  ever  granted.  It 
may  be  a  legitimate  exjiression  of  our  longing  for  perfection, 
our  desire  for  the  harmony  of  creation,  with  the  abolition  of 
all  that  now  seems  to  mar  its  order.  It  is  doubtless  a  con- 
sistent theorj',  that,  as  we  live  in  an  optimist  universe,  there 
is  now  no  real  blot,  or  lack  of  harmony,  within  it ;  and  that 


248  The  Function  of  Prayer 

•what  seems  imperfect  is  simply  due  to  the  nature  of  our 
lenses,  or  the  limited  range  of  the  human  eye,  that  cannot 
see  all  round  the  perfect  sphere.  It  is  more  consistent, 
however,  to  believe  that  a  real  chaos  exists,  which  will  be 
but  temporar}'^ ;  that  its  temporariness  does  not  destroy  its 
present  reality ;  and  that  "  the  discords  have  rushed  in," 
only  that  harmony  may  result.  If,  then,  a  disturbing 
element  really  exists,  one  who  sees  the  meaning,  and  is 
attracted  towards  the  universal  order,  may  validly  desire 
the  extinction  of  its  opposite,  and  may  express  that  longing 
in  a  prayer.  This,  indeed,  is  the  very  essence  of  the  cry, 
"  Thy  kingdom  come :  thy  will  be  done  in  earth  as  in 
heaven."  It  is  a  prayer  for  universal  harmony.  The  blight  • 
and  pestilence  of  the  world  are  surely  abnormal :  they 
are  not  a  part  of  the  absolute  order,  are  not  even  the 
outcome  of  law.  We  cannot  speak  of  the  laws  of  disease  as 
we  speak  of  the  laws  of  health.  Disease  is  the  non-fulfil- 
ment of  the  conditions  of  health :  it  is  anarcliic  and  law- 
less. It  seems  reasonable,  therefore,  to  desire  the  extinc- 
tion of  disease  and  blight  with  physical  discord  of  every 
kind,  as  well  as  to  deske  the  abolition  of  all  moral  evils. 
The  gradual  wearing-out  of  an  organic  structure  by  slow 
decay,  when  it  has  fulfilled  its  function  in  nature,  is  no 
encroachment  on  physical  perfection ;  but  its  removal  b}^  a 
sudden  stroke  we  lament  as  untimely  :  though,  in  both  cases, 
it  is  the  same  ending  of  terrestrial  life ;  just  as  the  pluck- 
ing of  a  bud  is  a  loss  different  in  kind  from  the  gradual 


in  the  Economy  of  the   Universe.  249 

decay  of  the  flower  when  its  bloom  is  ovei'.  And  oux*  desire 
for  the  phj'sical  perfection  of  the  whole  creation  might 
prompt  the  expression  of  that  longing  to  its  Author. 

But  here,  again,  we  are  on  the  verge  of  rashness,  and  run 
the  risk  of  inexactitude.  It  may  be  that  the  varieties  of 
disease  are  as  much  a  part  of  the  fixed  arrangements  of  the 
cosmos  as  are  the  different  types  of  organization.  Certain- 
1}'  the  causes  which  produced  them  have  worked  for  centu- 
ries, and  must  continue  operative  in  the  future.  Their 
variety  may  have,  also,  a  certain  physiological  beauty.  It  is 
more  in  keeping  with  the  general  plan  of  Nature  that  human 
life  should  terminate  in  a  huncked  ways  than  that  all  should 
reach  old  age,  and  fall  monotonously  into  the  tomb.  Be- 
sides, we  find  a  S3'stem  of  elaborate  contrivances  to  inflict 
pain,  and  to  effect  slaughter  and  sudden  death,  in  the  animal 
world.  The  whole  living  sj'stem  of  Nature,  from  the  infuso- 
ria to  the  mammal,  is  a  storehouse  of  illustrations  of  the 
same  apparent  evil,  while — 

"  Nature,  red  iu  tooth  and  claw, 
With  ravine  shrieks  against  our  creed." 

And  may  it  not  be  the  best  arrangement  in  our  human  world, 
that  hundreds  and  thousands  should  die  (as  we  say  prema- 
turely) to  make  way  for  successors,  while  their  own  life  is 
continued  elsewhere  ? 

Thus,  on  the  one  side,  the  fatalist  alternative  meets  us  full 
in  the  face ;  and  over  against  it  are  the  signs  of  disorder, 
wreck,  loss,  pain,  presenting  us  with  a  physical  text,  which 


250  The  Function  of  Prayer 

we  interpret  as  disease, —  an  element  foreign  to  the  perfection 
of  the  universe.  We  may  refuse  to  be  dragged  either  into 
the  Scjila  or  Charybdis  of  this  philosophical  antinomy ; 
but  we  can  only  do  so  by  the  recognition  of  a  living  Will 
ruling  the  universe  beneficently.  The  Theistic  faith  and 
prayer  do  not  remove  the  mystery  that  shrouds  it ;  but  they 
relieve  its  forward  pressure. 

"  Histor}^  and  experience  alike  testify  that  the  power  of 
prayer  is  simply  immeasurable.  Though  to  approach  God 
with  endless  and  irregular  requests,  soliciting  him  for  favors, 
instead  of  arising  to  do  his  will,  or  acquiescing  in  it,  is 
unquestionable  irreverence,  no  theory  of  causation  can  rob 
the  heart  of  its  right  to  pray  "  without  ceasing,"  or  the  in- 
tellect of  its  assurance  that  spiritual  "  praj-er  availeth 
much."  Mutual  concessions,  such  as  those  which  often  end 
the  strife  of  rival  litigants,  are  unknown  in  philosophical 
controvers}' ;  but  it  would  promote  a  better  understanding 
between  fellow-workers  in  the  cause  of  humanitj^,  were  our 
theologians  and  teachers  of  science  to  bestow  upon  each 
other  a  more  frank,  ungrudging  recognition,  and  to  sa}',  as 
Aprile  to  Paracelsus,  in  Browning's  noble  drama, — 

"  Let  our  God's  praise 
Go  bravely  tlirough  the  world  at  last : 
"What  care  through  thee  or  me." 

William  Knight. 


IX. 


PEAYEE.    THE  TWO  SPHEEES:  AEE  THEY 

TWO? 

BY  THE  DUKE  OF  AUGYLL. 


This  was  printed  in  the  next  (February)  number  of  "  The  Contem- 
porary Review,"  pp.  464-473,  as  an  answer  to  Mr.  Knight. 

In  a  subsequent  number  of  "The  Eeview,"  Mr.  Knight  replied. 
His  reply  is  a  sharp  criticism  of  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  and  reiteration 
and  amplification  of  the  original  argument  in  favor  of  two  spheres 
for  prayer.  Mr.  Knight  endeavors  to  convict  the  duke  of  contradic- 
tions between  some  of  his  statements  in  "The  Eeview"  and  state- 
ments in  his  "  Reign  of  Law."  As  it  advances  nothing  new  in  the 
argument,  this  reply  is  not  deemed  worth  reprinting. 


IX. 

PEAYER. 

THE  TWO  SPHERES  :  ARE  THEY  TWO  ? 

llfR.  KNIGHT'S  paper  in  the  last  number  of  this 
"Review"  is  an  attempt  to  give  a  precise  and  logical 
definition  to  the  function  of  prayer  in  the  economy  of 
the  universe.  This  attempt  is  a  bold  one,  and  invites 
criticism.  No  one  can  deny  that  there  are  intellectual  diffi- 
culties connected  with  the  idea  of  prayer  in  its  relation  to 
"the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,"  — 
diflSculties,  however,  of  exactl}^  the  same  kind  as  beset  all 
ultimate  conceptions  of  our  own  free-will,  and  of  its  effects 
on  the  course  of  Nature.  And,  as  regards  the  practical 
question  of  the  fitting  objects  of  petition  in  prayer,  St.  Paul 
expressly  tells  us,  that  "  we  knor^  not  what  we  should  pray 
for  as  we  ought."  ^  If  any  new  light  can  be  thrown  upon 
this  subject,  enabling  us  to  define  accurately  what  prayer 
can,  and  what  it  cannot,  do,  an  important  benefit  would 
be  conferred  on  the  Christian  Church. 

1  Eom.  viii.  26. 

253 


254  Prayer. 

Having  read  ISIr.  Knight's  paper  with  close  attention,  I 
wish  to  indicate  the  grounds  on  which  I  think  his  attempt  a 
failure,  and  his  philosophy  to  be  unsound.  Not  having  time 
or  opportunity  at  present  to  write  more  fully  on  the  sub- 
ject, I  shall  simply  specify  a  number  of  propositions  which 
are  to  be  found  in  Mr.  Knight's  paper,  either  directly 
asserted,  or  by  implication  involved  in  various  passages, 
with  a  few  comments  which  suggest  themselves  upon  each  of 
these. 

The  first  is,  — 

Tliat  there  is  a  ^^  sphere"  to  which  prayer  is  ^^  inherently 
inapplicable"  (p.  221). 

This  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  there  are 
some  things,  or  many  things,  that  ought  not  to  be  prayed 
for ;  as,  for  example,  for  things  manifestly  unreasonable. 
It  involves  the  proposition  that  there  is  a  particular  class  of 
things,  capable  of  being  accurately  defined,  for  which  we 
ought  never,  under  any  circumstances,  to  pTaj,  not  because 
we  can  see  them  to  be  unreasonable  or  wrong,  but  because, 
to  them,  prayer  is  inherently  inapplicable.  The  next  propo- 
sition gives  us  the  definition.     It  is,  — 

"  Prayer  is  a  power  which  is  removed  altogether  from  the 
sphere  of  physical  causation  "  (p.  221). 

The  difficulty  in  accepting  this  proposition  is,  that  we  are 
wholl}'  ignorant  how  much  the  "  sphere  of  phj^sical  causa- 
tion "  may  include.  If  there  be,  indeed,  two  "spheres," 
absolutely  separate,  — the  physical  and  the  spiritual,  —  they 


Prayer.  255 

are  in  such  inseparable  contact  in  (for  example)  our  own 
organism,  that  we  cannot  in  the  least  tell  where  the  one 
begins,  and  the  other  ends.  Man}'  men  are  now  in  the  con- 
stant habit  of  talking  of  thought  as  a  "  cerebration  ;  "  and 
the}'  seem  to  regard  this  language  as  essential  to  a  correct 
understanding  of  what  thought  is.  There  can,  therefore, 
be  no  practical  value  in  a  definition  which  assumes  an  abso- 
lute separation  where  none  such  probably  exists,  where 
certainly  none  such  can  be  proved,  and  the  lines  of  which, 
even  if  it  existed,  cannot  confessed^  be  traced.  Strange 
to  saj',  Mr.  Knight's  third  proposition  admits  this,  — 

"  That  the  spiritual  and  physical  forces  are  inter-related 
and  reciprocal  "   (p.  222). 

If  this  be  true,  it  does  not  seem  quite  easy  to  understand 
how  the  one  is  a  sphere  open  to  prayer,  and  the  other  is  a 
sphere  to  which  prayer  is  "  inherently  inapplicable." 

"  That  the  application  of  the  physical  law  of  evolution 
{natural  selection)  to  the  intellectual  and  moral  nature  of 
man  breaks  dozen  in  the  presence  of  free-will  "  (p.  222). 

This  assumes  that  the  free-will  of  man  is  not  subject  to 
law  ;  or,  at  least,  that  it  is  not  subject  to  law  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  physical  nature  is  s'ubject  to  law.  My  own 
conception  of  the  sense  in  which  "  law  "  prevails  in  Nature 
is  very  different  from  the  conception  which  Mr.  Knight 
appears  to  entertain  ;  but  in  this  proposition  we  have  the 
admission,  that  his  conception  of  the  "  operation  of  law" 
is  not  applicable  to  the  intellectuai  and  moral  character  of 


256  Prayer. 

man.  This  is  important,  considering  what  Mr.  Knight's 
idea  is  of  the  "reign  of  law"  in  Nature,  —  an  idea  which 
is  next  explained  to  us  in  those  loose  rhetorical  terms  which 
are  now  so  common  on  the  subject,  — 

' '  We  can  scarcely  doubt  that  the  amount  of  physical  force 
within  the  universe  is  incapable  of  increase  or  diminution,  but 
only  of  endless  modification  "  (p.  223). 

This  proposition,  in  so  far  as  it  represents  any  truth  at 
all,  has  no  relevanc}'^  whatever  to  the  subject  of  praj^er. 
There  may  be  many  excellent  reasons  why  we  should  not 
pray  for  the  stoppage  of  the  earth's  rotation ;  but  even 
the  success  of  such  a  petition  as  this  would  not  involve 
the  smallest  addition  to  the  amount  of  physical  force  in  the 
universe.  The  arrested  rotation  would  pass  into  other  forms 
of  motion.  "Endless  modification"  of  physical  forces  is 
all  that  is  needed  to  satisfy  even  the  most  extravagant 
petitions. 

Next  we  are  told,  that  — 

"  The  physical  nexus  between  phenomena  in  their  ceaseless 
flux  and  reflux  is  never  broTcen"  (p.  223). 

If  this  means  that  there  is  always  some  physical  tie 
between  phenomena,  it  is  (so  far  as  we  know)  true,  being 
simply  one  way  (and  a  very  obscure  one)  of  expressing  the 
general  law  of  causation ;  but  if  it  means  that  this  law  of 
causation  is  any  impediment  to  will  (divine  or  human)  in 
working  out  its  own  designs,  then  it  is  not  only  untrue,  but 
it  is  the  reverse  of  truth.     The  constancy  of  elementary 


Prayer.  257 

forces,  and  the  certainty  of  causation,  are  the  very  con- 
ditions, and,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  essential  conditions,  on 
which  will  works,  and  works  with  illimitable  effect. 

Next  we  are  told,  that  — 

"  The  order  in  which  phenomena  appear  is  governed  by  the 
rigor  of  adamantine  law  "  (p.  224). 

There  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which  this  is  true.     The 
order  of  phenomena  is  capable  of  endless  change.     Plas- 
ticity, infinite  plasticity,  in  the  hands   of    knowledge   and 
of  power,  is  of  the  very  essence  of  natural  law  in  its  com 
binations  and  results. 

But,  as  IVIr.  Knight's  idea  of  physical  law  is  such  as  ht. 
describes  it  here,  it  is  satisfactory  at  least  to  find  that  he 
admits  the  existence  of  an  element  in  man  which  breaks 
dozen  any  attempt  to  apply  to  his  "  intellectual  and  moral 
nature  "  the  same  physical  law  which  (he  thinlis)  has  been 
successfully  applied  to  his  body.  The  next  proposition, 
however,  seems  to  deprive  this  admission  of  all  value,  and 
even  of  all  meaning.     It  is,  that — 

"  A  spiritual  antecedent  will  not  produce  a  physical  conse- 
quent" (p.  225). 

This  proposition  we  know  to  be  untrue  in  the  case  of  our 
own  organism.  K  we  have  a  "  moral  and  intellectual  i 
nature"  separate  from  a  mere  physical  nature,  it  is  quite 
certain  that  moral  and  intellectual  antecedents  do  produce 
physical  consequents  in  our  body,  and,  through  our  bodily 
action,  upon  external  things.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  our 
17 


258  Prayer. 

' '  moral  and  intellectual  nature  "  is  not  separate  from  our 
organism,  what  becomes  of  Mr.  Knight's  absolute  separation 
between  the  two  "spheres"?  Again:  if  we  are  so  much 
under  mere  ' '  physical  causation  ' '  that  our  spiritual  antece- 
dents can  never  produce  a  ph3-sical  consequent,  what 
becomes  of  Mr.  Knight's  former  proposition,  that  we  have, 
in  any  sense  of  the  word,  a  free-will?  Accordingly  we  find, 
that,  in  the  next  proposition,  Mr.  Knight  gives  up  the  doc- 
trine of  free-will  altogether ;  for  here  it  is, — 

"  It  is  vain  to  reply  that  we  are  continually  interfering  with 
the  seemingly  fixed  laws  of  the  universe^  and  altering  their 
destination  by  our  activities  or  scientific  appliances"  (p.  225). 

If  this  be  a  "  vain  "  reply  to  the  materialist  or  the  physi- 
cist who  wishes  to  apply  the  ordinary  law  of  physical  causa- 
tion to  man's  moral  and  intellectual  nature,  what  other  reply 
has  Mr.  Knight  to  give?  What  becomes  of  his  previous 
assertion,  that  the  attempt  to  apply  to  the  mind  of  man  the 
same  physical  law  of  evolution  which  has  been  applied  to  his 
body  ^^  breaks  down  in  the  presence  of  free-wilV?  and 
what  becomes  of  a  subsequent  assertion,  that  the  human 
spirit,  recognizing  in  God  its  own  original,  "  implies  superi- 
ority to  the  unconscious  forces  of  the  material  world" 
(p.  237) ? 

Next  we  come  to  Mr.  Knight's  reason  for  thus  abandon- 
ing the  position  he  had  himself  assumed,  and  for  dismissing 
as  a  "  vain  reply  "  any  reference  to  our  own  voluntary  agen- 
cy.    The  reason  he  gives  is  this,  "  For,  in  all  such  cases,  we 


Prayer.  259 

simply  make  use  of  existing  forces.''  No  doubt:  but  how 
this  should  prove  that  a  "  spiritual  antecedent  will  not  pro- 
duce a  phj-sical  consequent,"  I  cannot  see.  Have  we,  or 
have  we  not,  a  free-will,  which  enables  us  by  a  spiritual  ante-  t 
cedent  to  make  use  of  our  own  physical  forces,  and,  through 
them,  of  other  existing  forces?  Mr.  Knight's  next  proposi- 
tion seems  to  imply  that  we  have  not.     It  is  this,  — •  / 

"  We  are  ourselves  a  part  of  the  physical  cosmos"  (p.  226). 

But  if  we  are  a  part  of  the  phj'sical  cosmos,  and  nothing 
else.,  then  there  can  be  no  part  of  us  outside  the  sphere  of 
purely  physical  causation.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are 
part  of  the  phj^sical  cosmos,  but  with  an  additional  element 
whose  woi-king  "  is  a  fact  of  conscioicsness,"  then  our  being 
part  of  the  phj'sical  cosmos  does  not  show  any  ' '  vanity " 
in  quoting  our  voluntary  agency  as  belonging  to  the  separate 
"  sphere  "  which  Mr.  Knight  has  endeavored  to  define  and 
assert.  Mr.  Knight  sums  up  some  remaining  sentences  on 
the  vanity  of  resting  any  argmnent  on  our  own  voluntarj' 
agency;  thus, — 

"J?i  short,  we  can  only  change  the  existing  order  by  the 
exercise  of  a  power  which  is  itself  a  part  of  that  order,  and 
whose  every  movement  is  regulated  by  law"  (p.  226). 

Here,  again,  we  are  landed  in  a  mere  confusion,  or  con- 
tradiction. If  the  power  of  will  is  a  part  of  the  existing 
order,  it  cannot  properly  be  said  to  change  it.  But,  if  the 
power  of  will  can  change  the  existing  order,  it  must  be 
something  more  than  a  mere  part  of  it.     Or  else  the  words, 


26o  Prayer. 

"the  existing  order"  are  mere  words,  and  nothing  more, 
capable  of  being  made  to  mean  any  thing,  or  nothing,  or 
every  thing  and  nothing,  alternately.  And  this  I  suspect  to 
be  very  near  the  truth. 

Next  we  take  a  sentence  involving  the  following  proposi- 
tion :  — 

"  Tlie  destination  of  a  physical  force  cannot  he  arrested, 
or  the  otherwise  inevitable  result  prevented,  by  an  act  of 
divine  volition  "  (p.  227). 

This  proposition,  it  will  be  observed,  involves  not  merely 
the  assertion  that  physical  forces  cannot  be  destroyed  or 
suspended  by  the  Creator's  will.  Such  an  assertion  would 
be  bold  enough ;  and  I  am  quite  ignorant  of  the  scientific 
discoveries  which  entitle  Mr.  Knight  to  make  it.  But  his 
assertion  is  much  more  stringent  than  this.  As  the  destina- 
tion of  a  physical  force  depends  on  its  association  with  other 
forces  of  the  same  kind,  and  on  the  proportion  in  which  it  is 
so  associated  with  one  or  more,  the  assertion  of  Mr.  Knight, 
is  that  the  divine  Will  cannot  even  direct  physical  forces  to 
the  accomplishment  of  particular  ends.  Man  can  do  this  to 
a  limited  degree,  because  he  is  part  of  the  cosmos  ;  but  God 
cannot  do  it,  although,  I  presume,  Mr.  Knight  would  admit 
that  the  subordination  of  the  cosmos  to  God  is  involved  in 
any  idea  of  a  Creator  which  we  can  form. 

Next  we  have  an  observation  to  the  effect,  that  the  possi- 
bility of  prayer  affecting  the  phj'sical  sphere  "  is  not 
supposed  to  apply  to  the  whole  domain  of  Nature,  but  only  to 


Prayer,  261 

apart  of  it;  since  no  one  would  pretend  that  the  rotation  of 
the  seasons  was  thus  determined"  (p.  228).  This  implies 
the  argument,  that  the  possibility  of  prayer  being  answered 
does  not  depend  at  all  upon  what  ma}'  be  called  the  reason- 
ableness of  the  petition,  and  that  a  prayer  for  something 
which  involves  the  ruin  of  a  world  is  quite  as  absurd  as  a 
petition  for  something  which  (for  aught  we  know,  or  for  an}^ 
thing  that  is  probably  true)  may  be  done  without  an}-  greater 
disturbance  than  is  produced  by  any  of  our  own  actions  in 
"  changing  the  existing  order."  This  argument  is  against 
common  sense,  and  is  obviously  founded  solely  on  the  as- 
sumption, that  the  reasonableness,  or  unreasonableness,  of 
a  petition,  has  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  possibilit}^  of  its 
being  gi-anted ;  which  possibility  is  absolutely  negatived 
wherever  any  phj^sical  change  is  concerned,  however  small 
this  change  ma}'  be. 

This  proposition  is  accordingly  distinctly  formulated  as 
follows :  — 

"  Yet  the  fluctuations  of  the  loeather  between  two  seconds 
of  time  are  as  rigorously  determined  by  laio  as  are  the  larger 
successions  of  the  seasons  "  (p.  228). 

This  is  quite  true  in  one  sense,  and  quite  untrue  in  an- 
other. The  sense  in  which  it  is  true  is,  that  all  ph^-sical 
phenomena  are  the  result  of  forces  in  combined  operation, 
and  can  never  be  uncaused.  The  sense  in  which  it  is  not 
true,  is,  that  these  combinations  of  force  are  incapable  of 
direction,    that    they   either   never  can    be    or    never    are 


262  Frayer. 

changed.  We  know  this  to  be  false  as  regards  man ;  and 
we  may  well  decline  to  accept  it  as  a  self-evident  truth  with 
regard  to  God. 

Next  comes  a  sentence  which  shows  that  Mr.  Knight  again 
recognizes  the  analogy  between  the  known  agency  of  man 
and  the  assumed  agency  of  a  divine  Will  in  changing  the 
order  of  ph3'sical  sequences.  He  compares  the  introduction 
of  a  "  casual  element  overruling  and  deflecting  some  phenome- 
na of  Nature"  with  '■'■tlie  free  volitions  of  a  man  determin- 
ing the  sequences  of  his  acts"  (p.  228)  ;  and  he  asserts  that 
any  such  introduction  "  would  infallibly  disturb  the  rest,  and 
introduce  bewildering  chaos"  (Ibid.).  Now,  as  this  is  not 
the  necessary  consequence  of  man's  "interference,"  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  why  it  should  be  the  necessary  conse- 
quence of  God's  "  interference,"  with  physical  causation. 

Mr.  Knight  next  tells  us,  speaking  of  the  absurdity  of 
praying  for  changes  of  weather,  "  that  the  apparent  bane  of 
one  district  is  the  blessing  of  another;^'  and  that  '■'^  these 
terms,  '•bane'  and  '■blessing,'  have  really  no  meaning  to  {in?) 
the  physical  universe  at  large  "  (p.  229). 

That  what  we  mistake  for  banes  may  often  be  really 
blessings  is  very  true,  and  ought  always  to  be  remembered. 
But  that  all  we  enjoy,  and  all  we  suffer,  are  given  to  us  in 
measures  absolutely  fixed,  and  absolutely  incapable  of  any 
other  distribution  than  that  which  is  determined  by  a  purely 
physical  necessity,  has  not  been  yet  proved,  or  even  indi- 
cated, by  aiiy  fact  of  science  or  any  ajiulogy  of  Nature. 


Prayer.  263 

But  then  Mr.  Knight  farther  tells  us,  that  the  puq^ort 
of  Revelation  "  ts  not  to  show  that  the  material  is  subordi- 
nate to  the  spiritual,"  but  "  to  announce  the  fact  that  the 
spiritual  lies  abidingly  within  the  material  as  its  underlying 
essence"  (p.  230).  But  if  this  is  so,  if  the  spiritual  is  the 
very  essence  of  the  physical,  how  comes  it  that  the  two 
spheres  can  be  so  neatly  and  completely  divided  as  Mr. 
Knight's  fundamental  proposition  implies? 

And  j^et,  a  little  further  on,  we  have  a  recurrence  to  this 
division  and  distinction  as  one  which  overrules  all  the  possi- 
bilities of  pra3^er.  "  All  men  instinctively  abstain  from  ]3re- 
suming  to  ask  God  for  certain  things  within  the  physical 
sphere ;  for  example,  for  constant  daylight,  &c.  .  .  .  Reli- 
gious men  do  not  pray  for  eternal  sunshine,  or  for  physical 
immortality.  Why  ?  Simply  because  they  recognize  that  such 
would  be  contrary  to  the  loill  of  God  as  revealed  in  the  laws 
of  external  nature;  and  it  rests  with  them  to  prove  that  one 
single  physical  event  may  be  validly  excluded  from  the  list  of 
the  predetermined  (p.  231).  Here,  again,  the  whole  stress 
of  the  alleged  impossibility  is  laid,  not  upon  the  moral  char- 
acter of  a  petition,  but  on  its  physical  or  non-physical 
character.  Praj^er  is  quite  applicable  in  the  spiritual,  which 
is  the  essence  of  the  material ;  but  it  is  absolutely  excluded 
in  those  outward  phj'sical  forms  which  arc  the  manifestations 
of  the  spiritual. 

All  this  may  be  so  ;  but  it  is  not  recommended  to  us  b3' 
reason,  nor  (may  I  say  so?  )  on  adequate  authority. 


264  Prayer. 

The  difficulty  of  accepting  it  is  not  abated  when  we  come 
to  examine  what  Mr.  Knight's  idea  is  of  the  sole  legitimate 
sphere  of  praj-er. 

Although  God  can  not,  or  will  not,  alter  phj-sical  se- 
quences, man  can  do  so,  and  ought  to  do  so,  as  far  as  his 
means  and  his  knowledge  enable  him.  The  sphere  of  his 
own  action,  therefore,  and  no  other  as  regards  physics,  is 
the  sphere  of  legitimate  prayer.  Mr.  Knight  sa3-s,  "  Now^ 
so  far  as  it  (calamity)  can  be  obviated  or  lessened  by  hu- 
man action,  prudence,  foresight,  and  conformity  to  the  laws 
of  Nature,  man  may  validly  pray  to  be  enabled  to  put  forth 
that  foresight  and  sagacity,  and  to  conform  to  those  laws. 
But  so  far  as  the  disaster  is  due  to  causes  with  which  he 
cannot  interfere,  it  is  illegitimate  in  him  to  pray  for  their 
removal  (p.  233). 

This  involves  the  assertion  that  God  never  can  or  never 
does  use  any  other  agency  than  that  of  man  to  act  upon 
physical  causation.  That  God  does  use  and  bless  human 
agency  for  the  production  of  physical  effects,  and  tliat  the 
prayer  for  enlightenment,  and  for  strength  to  use  that  agency 
well  and  wisel}',  is  a  legitimate,  and  ought  to  be  an  habitual, 
prayer,  is  no  novelty  among  religious  men.  But  that  our 
prayers  must  cease  when  our  own  agenc}',  or  that  of  our 
fellow-men,  is  exhausted,  is  certainl}'  a  novelt3\  But,  then, 
like  many  other  novelties,  "it  requires  confirmation."  It 
does  not  commend  itself  to  reason,  or  to  science,  or  to  any 
rational  conception  of  the  relations  of  a  Creator  to  man  and 


Prayer.  265 

to  the  world,  especially  when  the  assertions  upon  which  it 
is  founded  as  an  axiomatic  truth  are  assertions  which  must 
inspire  doubt  as  to  prayer  being  available  at  all,  even  in 
the  sphere  which  is  assigned  to  it. 

We  have  been  told  that  a  "  spiritual  antecedent  cannot 
determine  a  physical  consequent.^'  How,  then,  can  the  spirit- 
ual aid  of  God  in  the  spirit  of  man  determine,  or  help  in 
an}'  wajr,  his  physical  exertions?  And  what  if  the  phj^si- 
ologists  should  prove  that  man's  "cerebrations"  originate 
in  his  physical  organization?  how  can  the  spiritual  antece- 
dent of  the  divine  volition  determine  the  physical  conse- 
quent in  the  brain  of  man  ?  I  do  not  say  that  physiologists 
have  been  able  to  prove  this  ;  nor  do  I  believe  it  to  be  capa- 
ble of  proof.  But  we  all  know  that  thought  in  man  is  so 
intimately  associated  \v^ith  physical  conditions,  that  they 
cannot  be  separated  in  the  present  world :  and  if  we  are  to 
retain  any  belief  in  praj-er  at  all,  even  in  the  spiritual  sphere, 
it  is  not  safe  to  be  dependent  on  what  may  be  found  out,  or 
what  ma}'  be  conceived,  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  this 
connection. 

It  is,  indeed,  satisfactory  to  find  that  Mr.  Knight  guards 
himself,  or  desires  to  do  so,  against  this  danger  b}^  the  follow- 
ing emphatic  declaration,  "  Jn  the  conscious  freedom  of  our 
own  wills,  loe  recogriize  a  power,  irreducible  by  analysis, 
which  proclaims  our  superiority  to  the  links  of  physical 
causation"  (p.  238).  But  it  is  idle  to  suppose  that  man's 
superiority  to  the  links'  of  physical  causation  can  be  success- 


266  Prayer. 

fully  asserted  when  God's  superiorit}^  to  those  links  is 
denied.  Mr.  Knight  has  himself  not  onl}'  indicated,  bnt 
has  adopted,  the  bad  metaph^'sics  which  pretend  to  make  our 
supposed  consciousness  of  free-will  "reducible  by  anal3-sis" 
to  a  mere  delusion.  We  are  ourselves  parts  only  of  the 
cosmos :  all  that  is  of  us,  and  all  that  is  in  us,  is  itself 
determined  by  prior  influence  ;  and  every  movement  which 
we  think  is  "  free  "  is  in  reality  regulated  by  law.  Men  who 
have  been  deluded  into  the  belief  that  words  strung  together 
after  this  fashion  represent  any  truth  whatever  are  not 
likely  to  be  brought  back  to  common  sense  by  Mr.  Knight's 
assurance,  that  "i/ie  latent  power  that  lies  ivithin  the  free 
causality  of  man  may  be  stimulated  and  put  in  viotion  from 
a  point  beyond  the  chain  of  physical  sequence"  (p.  24G). 
For  Avho  knows  how  far  this  chain  extends?  Mr.  Knight 
had  previously  told  us,  that  ^Hhe  linJcs  of  the  chain  of  physi- 
cal sequence  continue  to  lengthen  out  interminably"  (p.  224). 
This  may  mean,  either  that  the  chain  never  ends,  or  that  we 
do  not  know  where  it  ends.  If  it  never  ends,  there  can  be 
no  point  be_yond  it.  If  it  does  end,  but  we  don't  know 
where,  then  our  prayers  must  not  only  be  ignorant,  but  must 
be  founded  upon  our  ignorance,  and  upon  that  alone. 
Accordingly  Mr.  Knight,  in  another  part  of  his  paper,  asks, 
^'^  Is  it  not  in  exact  proportion  to  our  ignorance  of  what  is 
fixed  that  we  make  it  the  subject  of  our  j)etitions?"  (p.  232). 
This,  truh',  is  the  result  of  Mr.  Knight's  theor}' ;  but  it  is 
not  the  result  of  the  old  Christian  theory,  or  of  any  theory 


Prayer.  267 

consistent  with  science,  or  our  own  experience.  Mr. 
Knight's  theorj'  of  a  fundamental  separation  between  the 
ph3-sica]  and  the  spiritual  is  a  theory  entirely  unsupported 
by  an}'  evidence  in  observation  or  in  consciousness.  The 
spiritual,  we  have  been  told,  is  not  superior  to  the  material, 
but  is  only  loithin  it.  "Who  knows,  then,  that  the  spiritual 
can  be  got  at  without  passing  through  the  physical  as  a 
crust,  or  an  envelope,  or  as  a  channel?  The  thinnest  bit  of 
such  a  crust  is  enough,  in  Mr.  Knight's  philosoph}',  to 
intercept  the  divine  power  and  will.  He  tells  us,  indeed, 
that  "  the  will  of  the  Supreme  may  freely  move  the  natures 
underneath  its  touch."  But,  then,  no  part  of  the  chain  of 
ph^-sical  causation  is  among  these  natures  ;  and  any  part  of 
that  chain  extending  beyond  our  knowledge  will  cut  off  our 
communication  with  God.  It  is  in  the  face  of  our  profound 
ignorance  of  the  relation  between  the  spiritual  and  the 
material,  in  the  face  of  his  own  admission  that  the  one  under- 
lies the  other,  and  the  one  is  the  essence  of  the  other,  that 
INIr.  Knight  again  tells  the  spiritualist  —  who  believes  that 
praj'er  can  possibly  affect  an}'  thing  exce^Dt  the  '•'■  petitioner's 
own  life  and  subjective  experience^'  — that  he  is  "  botmd  to 
define  that  thing,  or  class  of  things,  with  rigorous  precision  " 
V  (p.  245).  This  is,  indeed,  the  great  error  at  the  root  of  the 
whole  argument,  —  the  assumption  that  we  know  what  we  do 
not  know,  that  we  can  define  what  we  cannot  define,  that 
our  poor  verbal  distinctions  reach  and  represent  the  real 
nature   of  things,   instead    of  representing  only  one-sided 


268  Prayer. 

aspects  of  them,  and  partial  glimpses  of  a  system  onl}' 
partially  understood.  Hence  comes  the  use  of  language  in 
senses  inconsistent  and  self-contradictory,  confounding  the 
little  knowledge  we  possess  in  empt}^  and  confused  logoma- 
chies. 

It  is  indeed  difficult  to  understand  how  Mr.  Knight  could 
have  penned  the  following  ver}'  crude  statement  of  the  diffi- 
cult}^ connected  with  the  master-mystcr}-,  the  origin  of  evil, 
and  imagine  that  he  is  helping  the  definition  of  a  legitimate 
sphere  of  praj-er  by  dividing  absolutely  between  the  physi- 
cal and  the  spiritual :  '■^  /So  far  as  toe  can  think  of  the  com- 
plex economy  of  Nature  as  a  series  of  pre-arrangements, 
they  have  been  adjusted  each  to  each  loith  the  completest 
mastery  of  all  possible  emergencies.  Were  they  ever  altered 
at  the  suggestion  of  a  creature,  either  they  icere  imperfect 
before  the  suggestion  loas  made,  or  they  toere  made  less  per- 
fect by  means  of  it.  If  previously  perfect,  the  change  ivould 
be  undivine;  and,  if  not  perfect  until  the  change,  tve  coidd 
with  difficulty  believe  in  the  perfection  of  Him  who  made  it ' ' 
(p.  224).  Can  anyone  suppose  that  the  "difficulty"  here 
set  forth  can  be  confined  to  the  sphere  of  ' '  the  ph^'sical ' '  ? 
And  can  anj'  of  us  put  these  "difficulties"  into  words, 
without  a  perfect  consciousness  that  we  are  talking  nonsense, 
—  talking  about  things  which  we  do  not  in  the  least  under- 
stand ;  so  that  it  onl}-  remains  to  follow  up  such  questionings 
with  the  confession,  "So  foolish  was  I,  and  ignorant:  I  was 
as  a  beast  before  thee  "  ?  ^ 

1  Ps.  Ixiii.  23. 


Prayer.  269 

The  predominance  of  petitions  purely  spiritual  among  the 

petitions    of   the   Lord's    Pra3^er   is   a  good   argument  for  ' 

giving  the  same  predominance  to  them  in  all  prayer.     But 

that  great  exemplar  of  prayer  includes  at  least  one  direct 

petition  for  temporal  blessings,  and  in  all  of  them  the  two 

"spheres "are  inseparably  intermingled.     Reason,  science, 

and  revelation  alike  point  to  the  folly  and  ignorance  of  any 

attempt  to  draw  an  absolute  line  where  we  confessedly  have 

not  the  knowledge  to  enable  us  to  do  so,  and  confirm  the 

sound  philosophy,  as  well  as  the  piety,  of  the  old  Christian 

practice  of   "in  all   things   making  our  requests  known,",' 

with  the  overriding,  overruling  condition,  "nevertheless  not 

our  will,  but  Thine,  be  done." 

Argyll. 


X. 


PEAYER,  THE  CHARACTEEISTIC  ACTION  OF 
RELIGION. 

BY  H.  P.  LLDDON,  D.D.,  CANON  OF  ST.  PAUL'S. 


One  of  the  Lent  lectures  by  Canon  Lidilon,  delivered  in  1870,  in  St. 
James's  Church,  Piccadilly,  London,  and  published,  in  1872,  in  a  vol- 
ume entitled,  "Some  Elements  of  Religion,"  anticipates  in  substance, 
as  well  as  in  publication,  the  Prayer-Gauge  debate,  of  which  it  forms 
no  part  historically.  For  that  very  reason  it  seems  suitable  to  stand 
as  the  end,  and  wind  up  the  discussion. 


X. 


PRAYER,     THE     CHARACTERISTIC     ACTION     OP 
RELIGION. 

"Ask,  and  it  shall  be  giveu  you."  — Matt.  vii.  7. 

"QELIGION  is  the  bond  between  the  soul  and  God,  which 
sin,  bj'  virtue  of  its  very  nature,  breaks  up  and  destroys. 
It  is  of  importance  to  inquire  whether  man  can  strengthen 
and  intensif}'  that  which  he  can,  it  seems,  so  easily  ruin  if 
he  will.     Does  his  power  lie  only  in  the  direction  of  destruc- 
tion ?     Has  he  no  means  of  invigorating  and  repairing  a  tie, 
in  itself  so_precious,  yet,  in  some  respects,  so  frail?     The 
answer  lies  in  our  Lord's  promise.     Prayer  is  the  act  by' 
which  man,  conscious  at  once  of  his  weakness  and  of  his  j 
immortalit}',  puts  himself  into  real  and  effective  communica- ' 
tion  with  the  almighty,  the  eternal,  the  self-existent  God.  I 
I   say,  effective   communication ;    for   praj'er,   as   our  Lord 
teaches   in  the  text  and  elsewhere,  is  not  without  results. 
God   answers   pra3-er  in   many  ways.     His    answers  to  the 
soul's    petition    for  health    and    strength    are    collectively 
described    as   grace ;    grace    being    the   invisible    influence 

18  273 


2  74         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

whereby  he,  on  his  part,  strengthens  and  quickens  the  tie 
which  binds  the  petitioner  to  himself.  "  Ask,  and  it  shall 
be  given  you."  Prayer,  then,  braces  the  bond  of  religion 
from  the  side  of  man ;  and  grace,  God's  highest  answer  to 
prayer,  braces  it  in  a  different,  and  far  more  powerful,  sense, 
on  the  part  of  God. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  practice  of  praj'er  is 
co-extensive  with  the  idea  of  religion.  Wherever  man  has 
believed  a  higher  power  to  exist,  he  has  not  merely  discussed 
the  possibility  of  entering  into  converse  with  such  a  power : 
he  has  assumed,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  he  can  do  so. 
Upon  desert  plains  and  wild  promontories,  not  less  than  in 
crowded  thoroughfares  and  gorgeous  temples,  priesthoods 
and  kings  and  multitudes  have  taken  prater  for  granted,  as 
being  the  most  practical,  as  well  as  the  most  interesting  and 
solemn,  concern  of  life.  The  surface  of  the  earth,  of  parts 
of  our  own  island,  is  still  covered  with  the  relics  of  some 
among  these  ancient  worships.  And  if  the  implied  con- 
ceptions of  Deity  were  degraded,  and  the  rites  cruel,  or 
inhuman,  or  impure,  and  the  minds  of  the  worshippers  not 
seldom  imbruted  by  the  very  acts  which  should  have  raised 
them  heavenward,  still  the  idea  of  worship  as  the  natural 
correlative  of  belief  in  the  superhuman  was  always  there. 
To  know  that  a  higher  Being  existed,  and  interested  him- 
self, in  whatever  way,  in  the  destinies  of  man,  was  to  feel 
that  it  was  at  once  a  right  and  a  duty  to  approach  him. 

And    as   we   pass   the   historical   lines  within  which,   as 


of  Religion.  275 

Christians  believe,  mankind  has  enjoyed  a  knowledge  of 
God's  successive  revelations  of  his  true  self  and  his  true 
will,  we  find  that  prayer  is  the  prominent  feature,  the 
characteristic  exercise,  of  man's  highest  life.  Sacrifice 
begins  at  the  very  gates  of  Eden.^  The  life  of  early  patri- 
archs is  described  as  a  "  walking  with  God,"  a  continuous 
reference  of  thought  and  aspiration  to  the  Father  above, 
who  yet  was  so  near  them.^  And  after  the  Mosaic  law  was 
given,  when  the  idea  and  range  of  sin  had  been  deepened 
and  extended  in  the  mind  of  Israel,  we  find  pra^'er  organized 
in  a  system  of  sacrifices,  suited  to  various  wants  and  moods 
of  the  human  soul,  consciously  dealing  with  its  God  as  the 
king  both  of  the  sacred  nation  and  of  the  individual  con- 
science. Penitence,  thanksgiving,  intercession,  adoration, 
each  found  an  appropriate  expression.^  Later  still,  in  the 
Psalter,  prayer  —  the  purest,  the  loftiest,  the  most  passion- 
ate—  took  shape  in  imperishable  forms.  And  when,  at 
length,  a  new  revelation  was  made  in  Jesus  Christ,  there 
was  little  to  add  to  what  was  alread}'  believed  as  to  the 
power  and  obligation  of  prayer,  beyond  revealing  the  secret 
of  its  acceptance.  Our  Lord's  precepts*  and  example® 
are  sufficiently  emphatic  ;  and  his  apostles  appear  to  repre- 
sent prayer,  not  so  much  as  a  practice  of  the  Christian  life, 
as  its  very  breath  and  instinctive  movement.     The  Christian 

1  Gen.  iv.  4.  2  Gen.  v.  24,  vi  9.  3  Levit.  i.-vii. 

<  Matt.  vi.  9,  xxvi  41;  Mark  xi.  24;  Luke  xi.  2,  xTiii.  1,  &c. 
6  Matt.  xiv.  23;  Mark  vi.  40;  Luke  vi.  12,  ix  28;  John  xvii.  1. 


276         Prayer^  the  Oliaractei'istic  Action 

must  be  "  continuing  instant  in  prayer:  "  lie  must  "  pray 
without  ceasing."^ 


1. 

Each  faculty,  or  endowment,  or  form  of  activity,  that 
belongs  to  man  has,  over  and  above  a  number  of  more 
indirect  effects,  its  appropriate  and  characteristic  action,  in 
which  its  whole  strength  is  embarked,  and  in  which  it  has,  ' 
so  to  speak,  its  full  play.  To  this  law,  religion  is  no  excep- 
tion. While  its  influence  upon  human  life  is  strong  and 
various,  in  proportion  to  its  high  aim  and  object ;  while  it 
is  felt,  when  it  wields  real  empire,  in  ever}^  department  of 
human  activity  and  interest,  as  an  invigorating,  purifying, 
chastening,  restraining,  guiding  influence,  —  it,  too,  has  a 
work  peculiarly  its  own.  In  this  work  it  is  wont,  jf-we 
may-BO  speak,  to  embark  its  collective  forces,  and  to  become 
peculiarly  conscious  of  its  direction  and  intensity.  This 
work  is  prayer.  Prayer  is  emphatically  religion  in  action.  \ 
It  is  the  soul  of  man  engaging  in  that  particular  form  of 
activity  which  presupposes  the  existence  of  a  great  bond 
between  itself  and  God.  Pra3'cr  is,  therefore,  nothing  else 
or  less  than  the  noblest  kind  of  human  exertion.  It  is  the 
one  department  of  action  in  which  man  realizes  the  highest  1 
privilege  and  capacit}'  of  his  being.  And,  in  doing  this, 
1  Kom.  xii.  12;  1  Tliess.  v.  17. 


of  Religion.  277 

he  is  himself  enriched  and  ennobled  almost  indefinitely. 
Now,  as  of  old,  when  he  comes  down  from  the  mountain,  his  ' 
face  bears  tokens  of  an  irradiation  which  is  not  of  this  world. 
That  this  estimate  of  the  value  of  prayer  is  not  universal 
among  educated  people  in  our  day  is  only  too  notorious. 
If  many  a  man  were  to  put  into  words,  with  perfect  honesty 
and  esplicitness,  what  he  thinks,  he  would  say  that  pra3'er 
is  an  excellent  thing  for  a  clergj'man,  or  for  a  recluse,  or 
for  a  sentimentalist,  or  for  women  and  children  generally ; 
that  it  has  its  uses  as  a  form  of  desultory'  occupation,  an 
outlet  for  feeling,  a  means  of  discipline :  for  himself,  he 
cannot  really  think  that  much  pra3'er  would  help  him  much. 
It  implies  a  life  of  feeling,  perhaps,  he  would  saj',  of  morbid 
feeling ;  and  he  prides  himself  upon  being  guided  only  by 
reflection.  It  is  sustained,  he  thinks,  by  imagination, 
rather  than  by  reason  ;  and  he  deems  imagination  puerile 
and  feminine.  His  religion,  whatever  it  is,  has  nothing  to 
do  with  imagination,  and  is  hard  reason  from  first  to  last ; 
and,  accordingly,  prayer  seems  to  him  to  be  altogether  less 
worth}-  of  the  energies  of  a  thinking  man  than  hard  work, 
whether  it  be  work  of  the  hands,  or  of  the  brains,  whether 
it  be  study  or  business.  The  dk^nity  of  real  labor  is  pro- 
verbial ;  but  where,  he  asks,  is  the  dignit}'  of  so  sentimental 
an  occupation  as  prayer?  "  For  his  own  part,  he  thinks" 
(I  am  quoting  words  which  have  actually  been  used)  "  that 
religion  is  not  worship,  but  only  another  name  for  doing 
cood  to  our  fellow-creatures." 


278         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

Now,  without  sa3ang  one  word  to  disparage  the  intimate 
connection  between  religion  and  philanthi*opy,  let  us  exam- 
ine the  idea  of  prayer,  which  is  taken  for  granted  in  such 
language  as  the  foregoing.  Is  it  true,  that  prayer  is,  as  is 
assumed,  little  else  than  the  half-passive  play  of  sentiment, 
which  flows  languidly  on  through  the  minutes  or  hours  of 
easy  revery?  Let  those  who  have  really  prayed  give  the 
answer.  The}^  sometimes  describe  prayer  with  the  patriarch 
Jacob  as  a  wrestling-together  with  an  Unseen  Power,  which 
may  last,  not  unfrequently  in  an  earnest  life,  late  into  the  I 
night-hours,  or  even  to  the  break  of  day.^  Sometimes  they 
refer  to  common  intercession  with  St.  Paul  as  a  concerted 
struggle.^  They  have,  when  praying,  their  eyes  fixed  upon 
the  Great  Intercessor  in  Gethsemane,  upon  the  drops  of 
blood  which  fall  to  the  ground  in  that  agony  of  resignation 
and  sacrifice.^  Importunity  is  of  the  essence  of  successful 
prayer.  Our  Lord's  references  to  the  subject  especially 
impl}'  this.  The  friend  who  is  at  rest  with  his  family 
will  rise,  at  last,  to  give  a  loaf  to  the  hungrj'^  applicant.* 
The  unjust  judge  3-ields,  in  the  end,  to  the  resistless  eager- 
ness of  the  widow's  cry.^  Our  Lord's  blessing  on  the  S3T0- 
Phoenician  woman  is  the  consecration  of  importunity  with 
God.^  And  importunity'  means,  not  dreaminess,  but  sus-  ^ 
tained  work.  It  is  through  pra^-er  especiallj'  that  "  tlie 
kingdom  of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it 

1  Gen.  xxxii.  24.      -  Rom.  xv.  30.      3  Luke  xxii.  44.      4  Luke  xi.  8. 
6  Luke  xviii.  5.       g  UaXt.  xv.  28,  29;  Mark  vii.  23,  29. 


of  Religion.  279 

b}' force."  ^  It  was  a  saying  of  the  late  Bishop  Hamilton 
of  Salisbmy,  that  "  no  man  was  likely  to  do  much  good  in 
prayer,  who  did  not  begin  by  looking  upon  it  in  the  light 
of  a  work,  to  be  prepared  for  and  persevered  in  with  all 
the  earnestness  which  we  bring  to  bear  upon  subjects,  which 
are  in  our  opinion  at  once  most  interesting  and  most 
necessary. ' ' 

This,  indeed,  will  appear,  if,  looking  to  an  act  of  real 
praj-er,  we  take  it  to  pieces.  Of  what  does  it  consist?  It 
consists  alwaj's  of  three  separate  forms  of  activity,  which, 
in  the  case  of  different  persons,  co-exist  in  very  var\'ing 
degrees  of  intensity,  but  which  are  found,  in  some  degree, 
in  all  who  pray,  whenever  they  pray. 

To  pray,  is,  first  of  all,  to  put  the  understanding  in  motion ,_(_ 
and  to  direct  it  upon  the  highest  object  to  which  it  can 
possibly'  address  itself,  —  the  infinite  God.  In  our  private 
pra3-ers,  as  in  our  public  liturgies,  we  generally  preface  the 
petition  itself  by  naming  one  or  more  of  his  attributes,  — 
Almighty  and  Everlasting  God !  If  the  understanding  is 
reall}'  at  work  at  all,  how  overwhelming  are  the  ideas,  the 
truths,  which  pass  thus  before  it !  —  a  boundless  power,  an 
existence  which  knows  neither  beginning  nor  end.  Then 
the  substance  of  the  petition,  the  motives  which  are  alleged 
for  urging  it,  the  issues  which  depend  upon  its  being  granted 
or  being  refused,  present  themselves  to  the  eye  of  the 
understanding.     And  if  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  not  him- 

1  Matt.  xi.  12. 


28o         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

self,  as  being  both  God  and  man,  the  object  of  pra3'er,  j-et 
his  perpetual  and  prevailing  intercession  opens  upon 
Christian  thought  the  inmost  mysteries  before  the  eternal 
throne.  And  thus  any  common  act  of  real  prayer  keeps, 
not  the  imagination,  but  the  understanding,  occupied 
earnestly,  absorbingly^,  under  the  guidance  of  faith,  from 
first  to  last.^ 

Next,  to  pray  is  to  put  the  affections  in  motion :  it  is  to  \ 
open  the  heart.  The  object  of  prayer  is  the  Uncreated  Love, 
the  Eternal  Beaut^',  —  He  of  whose  beauty  all  that  moves 
love  and  admiration  here  is,  at  best,  a  pale  reflection.  To  be 
in  his  presence  in  prayer  is  to  be  conscious  of  an  expan- 
sion of  the  heart,  and  of  the  pleasure  which  accompanies  it, 
which  we  feel,  in  another  sense,  when  speaking  with  an 
intimate  and  loved  friend  or  relative.  And  this  movement 
of  the  affections  is  sustained  throughout  the  act  of  prayer. 
It  is  invigorated  by  the  spiritual  sight  of  God  ;  but  it  is  also 
the  original  impulse  which  leads  us  to  draw  near  to  him.=^ 
In  true  prayer  as  in  teaching,  "  out  of  the  abundance  of  the 
heart  the  mouth  speaketh."  ^ 

Once  more:  to  pray  is  to  put  the  will  in  motion,  just  as    \ 
decidedly  as  we  do  when  we  sit  down  to  read  hard,  or  to 
walk  up  a  steep  hill  against  time.*    That  sovereign  power 

1  Eph.  vi.  IS;  Joliu  iv.  22-29;  Horn.  x.  14;  Heb.  xi.  6. 

2  Matt.  XV.  8;  1  John  iii.  21,  22. 

3  Matt.  xii.  ?A;  Luke  vi.  45. 

*  John  ix.  31 ;  Matt.  vii.  21 ;  James  iv.  7,  8.     These  passages  all  imply 
that  prayer  in  which  the  will  is  not  engaged  is  wortliless. 


of  Religion.  281 

in  the  soul,  which  we  name  the  will,  does  not  merely,  in 
prayer,  impel  us  to  make  the  first  necessary  mental  effort, 
but  enters  most  penetratingly  and  vitally  into  the  very 
action  of  the  prayer  itself.  It  is  the  will  which  presses  the 
petition ;  it  is  the  will  which  struggles  with  the  reluctance 
of  sloth,  or  with  the  oppositions  of  passion ;  it  is  the  will 
which  perseveres  ;  it  is  the  will  which  exclaims,  "  I  will  not 
let  thee  go,  except  thou  bless  me."^  The  amount  of  will 
which  we  severally  carry  into  the  act  of  prayer  is  the  ratio 
of  its  sincerity  ;  and,  where  prayer  is  at  once  real  and  pro- 
longed, the  demands  which  it  makes  upon  our  power  of  con- 
centrating determination  into  a  specific  and  continuous  act 
K  are  very  considerable  indeed. 
'  Now,  these  three  ingredients  of  prayer  are  also  ingredi- 
ents in  all  real  work,  whether  of  the  brains  or  of  the  hands. 
The  sustained  effort  of  the  intelligence  and  of  the  will  must 
be  seconded  in  vfork,  no  less  than  in  prayer,  by  a  movement 
of  the  affections,  if  work  is  to  be  really  successful.  A  man 
must  love  his  work  to  do  it  well.  The  difference  between 
prayer  and  ordinary  work  is,  that,  in  prayer,  the  three  ingre- 
dients are  more  equally  balanced.  Study  may,  in  time, 
become  intellectual  habit,  which  scarcely  demands  any  effort 
of  will :  handiwork  may,  in  time,  become  so  mechanical  as 
to  require  little  or  no  guidance  from  thought :  each  may  exist 
in  a  considerable,  although  not  in  the  highest,  degree  of 
excellence,  without  any  co-operation  of  the  affections.     Not 

1  Gen.  xxxii.  26. 


282  Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

so  prayer.     It  is  always  the  joint  act  of  tlie  will  and  the    ' 
^understanding,  impelled  by  the  affections  ;  and,  when  either 
will  or  intelligence  is  wanting,  prayer  at  once  ceases  to  be 
itself,  by  degenerating  into  a  barren  intellectual  exercise,  or 
into  a  mechanical  and  unspiritual  routine. 

The  dignity  of  prayer  as  being  real  work  becomes  clear  to 
us,  if  we  consider  the.  faculties  which  it  employs.  This  will 
be  made  clearer  still,  if  we  consider  the  effect  of  all  sincere 
pra3'er  upon  the  habitual  atmosphere  of  the  soul.  Pra3'er 
places  the  soul  face  to  face  with  facts  of  the  first  order  of 
solemnity  and  importance,  with  its  real  self,  and  with  its  ' 
God.  And  just  as  art,  or  study,  or  labor,  in  any  department, 
is  elevating,  when  it  takes  us  out  of  and  be^'ond  the  petty 
range  of  dail}'  and  perhaps  material  interests,  while  3'et  it 
quickens  interest  in  them  b}'  kindling  higher  enthusiasms 
into  life,  so,  in  a  peculiar  and  transcendent  sense,  it  is  with 
pra3'er.  Prayer  is  man's  inmost  movement  towards  a  higher' 
power  ;  but  what  is  the  intellectual  view  or  apprehension  of 
himself  that  originally  impels  him  to  move  ?  Under  what 
aspect  does  man  appear  to  himself  in  praj-er  ?  In  a  former 
lecture,  we  have  encountered  the  mystery  which  lies  enclosed 
within  each  one  of  us,  —  the  mystery  which  is  yet  a  fact,  — 
of  an  undying  personalit}'.  It  is  that  which  each  human 
speaker  describes  as  "I."  It  is  that  of  which  each  of  us 
is  conscious  as  no  one  else  can  be  conscious.  Its  existence 
is  not  proved  to  us  by  a  demonstration,  since  we  apprehend 
it  as  immediately  obvious.     Its  certainty  can  be  shaken  by 


of  Religion.  283 

no  sopliistical  or  destructive  argument,  since  our  conviction 
of  its  reality  is  based  upon  a  continuous  act  of  primarj-  per- 
ception. No  sooner  do  we  withdraw  ourselves  from  the  im- 
portunities of  sense,  from  the  wanderings  of  imagination, 
from  the  misleading  phrases  which  confuse  the  mental  sight, 
than  we  find  ourselves  face  to  face  with  this  fact,  represented 
]h)y  "I."  For  it  is  neither  the  bod}-  which  the  real  self  may 
ignore,  nor  a  passionate  impulse  which  the  real  self  may 
conquer,  nor  even  that  understanding,  which,  close  as  it  is 
to  the  real  self,  is  yet  distinct  from  it.  The  body  may  be  in 
its  decrepitude ;  the  flames  of  passion  may  have  died  away  ; 
the  understanding  may  be  almost  in  its  dotage :  yet  the 
inward,  self-possessed,  self-governing  being  may  remain  un- 
touched, realizing  itself  in  struggling  against  the  instincts 
of  bodily  weakness,  and  in  crushing  out  the  embers  which 
survive  the  fires  of  extinct  passions.  Now,  it  is  this  self,  j 
conscious  of  its  greatness,  conscious  of  its  weakness,  whichj 
is  the  real  agent  in  praj'er.  In  its  oppressive  sense  of  soli- 
tude, even  in  the  midst  of  multitudes,  this  self  longs  to  go 
forth,  and  to  commune  with  the  Father  of  spirits  who 
gave  it  life.  This  real  self  it  is  which  apprehends  God  with 
the  understanding,  which  embraces  him  with  the  aflfectious,  | 
which  resolves  through  the  will  to  obey  him  ;  and  thus  does 
it  underlie  and  unite  the  complex  elements  of  prayer,  so 
that,  in  ti'ue  heartfelt  pra^'er,  we  become  so  conscious  of  its 
vitalitj^  and  }X)wer.  It  is  in  pra^-er  especiall}'  that  we  cease 
to  live,  as  it  were,  in  a  single  faculty,  or  on  the  surface  of 


284         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

our  being :  it  is  in  prayer  that  we  cease  to  regard  ourselves 
as  animal  forms,  or  as  social  powers,  or  as  family  characters, 
and  look  hard,  for  the  time  being,  at  ourselves  as  being 
what  we  really  are ;  that  is  to  sa}^,  as  immortal  spirits, 
outwardly  draped  in  social  forms  and  proprieties,  and  linked 
to  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  but,  in  our  felt  spiritual  solitude, 
looking  steadily  upwards  at  the  face  of  God,  and  straining 
our  eyes  onwards  towards  the  great  eternity  which  lies 
before  us.'^ 

Prayer  is,  then,  so  noble,  because  it  is  the  work  of  man 
as  man,  —  of  man  realizing  his  being  and  destiny  with  a 
vividness  which  is  necessary  to  him  in  no  other  occupation. 
But  what  shall  we  say  of  it,  when  we  reflect  further,  that, 
in  prayer,  man  holds  converse  with  God  ;  that  the  Being  of 
beings,  with  all  his  majestic  attributes,  filling  and  tran- 
scending the  created  universe,  traversing  human  history, 
traversing  each  man's  own  individual  historj^,  is  before 
him  ;  that,  although  man  is  dust  and  ashes,  he  is,  by  praj-er, 
already  welcomed  in  the  verj'  courts  of  heaven?  It  is  not 
necessary  to  dwell  on  this  topic.  Whatever  be  the  daily 
occupations  of  any  in  this  church,  be  he  a  worker  with  the 
hands,  or  a  worker  with  the  brain,  be  he  gentle  or  simple, 
be  he  unlettered  or  educated,  be  he  high  in  the  State,  or 
among  the  millions  at  its  base,  is  it  not  certain  that  the 
nobleness  of  his  highest  forms  of  labor  must  fall  infinitely 
below  that  of  any  single  human  spirit  entering  consciously 
into  converse  with  the  infinite  and  eternal  God? 
»  Luke  xviii.  13,  14. 


of  Religion.  285 


But  granted,  men  say,  the  dignit}''  of  praj'cr,  granted, 
even,  its  dignity  as  labor:  what  if  this  labor  be  misapplied? 
There  are  man}'  functions  in  many  states,  very  dignified, 
and  not  a  little  onerous,  yet,  in  a  social  and  human  sense, 
not  very  productive.  Is  prayer,  in  its  sphere,  of  this 
description?  Has  it  no  tangible  results?  Does  it  end 
with  itself?  Can  the  laborer  in  this  field  point  to  any  thing 
definite  that  is  achieved  b}^  his  exertions? 

The  question  is  suflScientl}^  serious  at  all  times,  but 
especially  in  our  own  positive  and  practical  day.  And 
it  is  necessary  to  make  two  observations,  that  we  may  see 
more  clearl}'  what  issue  is  precisely  before  us. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  here  no  question  as  to  the 
subjective  effect  of  prayer,  —  the  eflTect  which  it  confessedly  1 
has  upon  the  mind  and  character  of  the  person  who  prays. 
Such  effects  have  been  admitted  on  the  part  of  those  who, 
unhappil}',  do  not  pray  themselves ;  just  as  the  Jews,  at  the 
time  of  the  betraj-al,  were  so  alive  to  tokens  in  the  disci- 
ples of  companionship  with  Jesus.  That  all  the  effects  of 
Christian  pra^'er  upon  the  soui,  or  most  of  them,  are 
natural,  a  Christian  cannot  admit :  he  believes  them  to  be 
chiefly  due  to  the  transforming  power  of  the  grace  of  God,  ' 
given,  as  at  other  times,  so  especially  in  answer  to  prayer. 
But  that  some,  effects  of  pra3er  upon  the  soul  are  natural 
consequences   of    directing    the    mind    and    the    affections 


286         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

towards  a  superhuman  object,  whether  real  or  ideal,  may 
be  fully  granted.  Thus  it  has  been  observed  that  persons 
without  natural  ability  have,  through  the  earnestness  of 
their  devotional  habits,  acquired,  in  time,  powers  of  sus- 
tained thought,  and  an  accuracy  and  delicac}^  of  intellect- 
ual touch,  which  would  not  else  have  belonged  to  them. 
The  intellect  being  the  instrument  by  which  the  soul 
handles  religious  truth,  a  real  interest  in  religious  truth 
will,  of  itself,  often  furnish  an  educational  discipline :  it 
alone  educates  an  intellect  which  would  otherwise  be  ' 
uneducated.^  The  moral  effects  of  devotion  are  naturally 
more  striking  and  abundant.  Habitual  praj'er  constantly 
confers  decision  on  the  wavering,  and  energ}'  on  the 
listless,  and  calmness  on  the  excitable,  and  disinterested- 
ness on  the  selfish.  It  braces  the  moral  nature  by  trans- 
porting it  into  a  clear,  invigorating,  unearthly  atmosphere : 
it  builds  up  the  moral  life,  insensibly  but  surely  remedy- 
ing its  deficiencies,  and  strengthening  its  weak  points,  till 
there  emerges  a  comparatively  symmetrical  and  consistent 
Avholc,  the  excellence  of  which  all  must  admit,  though 
its  secret  is  known  only  to  those  who  know  it  b}'  experi- 
ence.^ Akin  to  the  moral  are  the  social  effects  of  prayer. 
Prayer  makes  men,  as  members  of  societ}^,  diflTerent  in 
their  whole  bearing  from  those  who  do  not  pray.  It 
gilds  social  intercourse  and  conduct  with  a  tenderness,  an 
unobtrusiveness,   a  sincerity,  a  frankness,  an   evenness   of 

1  Ps.  cxix.  100.  2  pg.  xxs'ii.  4,  5,  G. 


of  Religion.  287 

temper,  a  cheerfulness,  a  collectedness,  a  constant  con- 
sideration for  others,  united  to  a  simple  loj'alty  to  truth 
and  duty,  which  leavens  and  strengthens  society.  Nay,  it 
is  not  too  much  to  sa}'  that  prayer  has  even  physical 
results.  The  countenance  of  a  Fra  Angelico  reflects  his 
spirit  no  less  than  does  his  art :  the  bright  eye,  the  pure 
elevated  expression,  speak  for  themselves.  It  was  said  of 
one  who  has  died  within  the  present  generation,^  that,  in 
his  later  years,  his  face  was  like  that  of  an  illuminated  clock  : 
the  color  and  gilding  had  long  faded  away  from  the  hands 
and  figures  ;  but  the  ravages  of  time  were  more  than  com- 
pensated for  by  the  light  which  shone  from  within.  This 
was  what  might  have  been  expected  in  an  aged  man  of 
gi'eat  piety.  To  have  lived  in  spirit  on  Mount  Tabor  dur- 
ing the  years  of  a  lorg  life  is  to  have  caught  in  its  closing 
hours  some  raj's  of  the  glory  of  the  transfiguration. 

Secondly,  prayer  is  not  only  —  perhaps,  in  some  of  the 
holiest  souls,  it  is  not  even  chiefly — a  petition  for  some-  ' 
thing  that  we  want,  and  do  not  possess.  In  the  larger  sense 
of  the  word,  as  the  spiritual  language  of  the  soul,  praj'er 
is  intercourse  with  God,  often  seeking  no  end  beyond 
the  pleasure  of  such  intercourse.  ■  It  is  praise ;  it  is  con- 
gratulation ;  it  is  adoration  of  the  infinite  Majesty ;  it  is 
a  colloquy  in  which  the  soul  engages  with  the  All-wise  and 
the  All-holy ;  it  is  a  basking  in  the  sunshine,  varied  by 
ejaculations  of  thankfulness  to  the  Sun  of  righteousness 
1  Kev.  J.  Keble. 


2  88         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

for  his  light  and  his  warmth.  In  this  larger  sense,  the 
earlier  part  of  the  Te  Denm  is  praj^er,  as  much  as  the 
latter  part ;  the  earliest  and  latest  clauses  of  the  Gloria 
in  Excelsis,  as  truly  as  the  central  ones ;  the  Sanctus  or 
the  Jubilate,  no  less  than  the  Litany ;  the  Magnificat,  as 
certainly  as  the  Fifty-first  Psalm.  When  we  seek  the 
company  of  our  friends,  we  do  not  seek  it  simpl}-  Avith  the 
view  of  getting  something  from  them :  it  is  a  pleasure  to  ' 
be  with  them,  to  be  talking  to  them  at  all,  or  about  any 
thing ;  to  be  in  possession  of  their  sjonpathies,  and  to  be 
showing  our  delight  at  it ;  to  be  assuring  them  of  their 
place  in  our  hearts  and  thoughts.  So  it  is  with  the  soul, 
when  dealing  with  the  Friend  of  friends,  —  with  God. 
Prayer  is  not,  as  it  has  been  scornfully  described,  "  only 
a  machine  warranted  b}'  theologians  to  make  God  do  what 
his  clients  want."  It  is  a  great  deal  more  than  petition,  ' 
which  is  onl}'  one  department  of  it :  it  is  nothing  less  than 
the  whole  spiritual  action  of  the  soul  turned  towards  God 
as  its  true  and  adequate  object.  And,  if  used  in  this  com-  ' 
prehensive  sense,  it  is  clear,  that  as  to  much  praj-er,  in 
the  sense  of  spiritual  intercourse  with  God,  the  question, 
Whether  it  is  answered  can  never  arise,  for  the  simple  * 
reason  that  no  answer  is  asked  for. 

But  whether  prayer  means  onh',  as  in  popular  language 
it  does  generally  mean,  petition   for   a   specific   object,  or    • 
the  whole   cycle  of  possible  communion  between  the   soul 
and   God,   the  question,   Whether    it    is    heard   is    a   veiy 


CK 


of  Religion.  289 

practical  one.  We  do  not  address  inanimate  objects,  how- 
ever beautiful  they  rufxy  be,  except  in  the  way  of  poetical 
apostrophe.  We  do  not  enter  into  spiritual  colloquy  with 
the  mountains,  or  the  rivers,  or  the  skies,  with  a  view  to 
discharging  a  duty  to  them,  or  really  improving  ourselves.^ 
If  there  is  really  no  Being  above  who  does  hear  us,  what 
can  be  the  use  of  continuing  a  practice  that  is  based  upon 
an  altogether  false  presumption?  The  subjective  benefits 
of  prayer  depend  upon  our  belief  in  its  real  power.  But, 
even  if  they  did  not,  who  would  go  through  a  confessedly 
fictitious  exercise,  at  regular  intervals,  with  a  view  to 
securing  them?  Who  would  continue  to  pray  regularly, 
if  he  were  once  well  persuaded  that  the  effect  of  prayer 
is,  after  all,  only  like  the  effect  of  the  higher  philosophy  or 
poetry,  —  an  education  and  a  stimulus  to  the  soul  of  man, 
but  not  an  influence  that  can  really  touch  the  mind  or  will 
of  that  Being  to  whom  it  is  addressed  ?  Nobody  denies  the 
moral  and  mental  stimulus  which  is  to  be  gained  from  the 
study  of  the  great  poets.  But  do  we  read  Homer,  or 
Shakespeare,  or  Goethe,  each  morning  and  evening,  and 
perhaps  at  the  middle  of  the  day?  Or,  if  such  were  the 
practice  of  any  of  us,  should  we  have  any  approach  to 
a  feeling  of  being  guilty  of  a  criminal  omission,  if,  now 
and  then,  we  omitted  to  read  them  ?  No :  if  prayer  is  to 
be  persevered  in,  it  must  be  on  the  strength  of  a  conviction 

1  The  apostrophes  of  the  Psalms  and  the  Benedicite  are  really  acts 
of  praise  to  God,  of  which  his  creatures  furnish  the  occasion. 
19 


290         Prayer^  the  Cliaracterwtic  Action 

that  it  is  actually  heard  by  a  living  person.  "We  cannot 
practise  any  intricate  trickery  upon  ourselves  with  a  view 
to  our  moral  edification.  We  cannot  praj^,  if  we  believe  in 
our  hearts  that  in  prayer  we  are  only  holding  communion 
with  an  ideal  world  of  our  own  creation  ;  that  we  are  like 
children  with  overheated  imaginations,  vainly  endeavoring 
to  pass  the  bai-riers  which  really  confine  us  to  our  dark, 
earthly  prison-house,  while,  in  our  failure,  we  half  con- 
sciously, half  unconsciously,  cheat  ourselves  with  the  conso- 
lation of  talking  to  shapes  of  power  or  benevolence,  traced 
by  our  fathers  or  by  ourselves  upon  its  inexorable  walls. 
We  cannot  fall  into  the  ranks  of  the  Christian  Church, 
lifting  up  the  holy  hands  of  sacrifice  and  intercession  on 
all  the  mountains  of  the  world,  if,  in  our  hearts,  we  see 
in  her  only  a  new  company  of  Baal- worshippers,  gathering 
upon  the  slopes  of  some  modern  Carmel,  and  vainly 
endeavoring  to  rouse  her  idol  into  an  impossible  animation, 
while  the  Elijahs  of  materialistic  science  stand  b}''  to  mock 
her  fruitless  eflTorts  with  the  playful  scorn  of  that  tranquil 
irony  to  which  theu'  higher  knowledge  presumably  entitles 
them, 
y/  The  question  whether  God   hears   prayer,  is,  at  bottom, 

*^      the  question  whether  he  is  really  alive ;  whether,  in  any  true 
sense  of  the  term,  he  exists  at  all.     No  word  is  used  more 
~~    equivocally  than  the  word  ' '  God ' '    in  the  present  day.     If 
by  "  God  "  we  mean  only  a  product  of  the  thought  or  con- 
sciousness of  man,  to  which  it  cannot  be  certainlj'  presumed 


of  Religion.  291 

that  any  baing  actually  corresponds ;  the  highest  thought 
of  man,  yet  only  man's  highest  thought, — then  there  is, 
of  course,  no  one  who  can  hear  us.  It  has  been  said,  that  if 
a  man  talks  out  loud  to  himself,  apostrophizing  what  are,  in 
truth,  only  his  own  conceptions,  it  is  difficult  not  to  credit 
him  with  a  certain  tinge  of  madness  ;  and  it  would  be  just 
as  practical  to  address  our  prayer  to  the  carved  and  gilded 
idols  of  Bab3-lon,  whose  manufacture  roused  the  sternest 
satire  of  the  evangelical  prophet,  as  to  the  unreal  abstrac- 
tions, which,  labelled  with  the  most  hoi}'  Name,  are  sent 
/US  from  the  intellectual  workshops,  ancient  and  modern,  of 
Alexandria  or  of  Berlin.  And  if  bj^  "  God  "  is  meant  only 
the  unseen  force  of  the  universe,  or  its  collective  forces,  if  ' 
he  is  the  principle  of  growth  in  the  plant,  the  life-principle 
in  the  animal  or  in  man,  we  need  not  read  Spinoza  in  order 
to  convince  ourselves  of  the  fruitlessness  of  prayer.  A 
self-existing  force  or  cause,  if  such  can  be  conceived, 
without  intelligence,  without  personality,  of  course  without 
\  any  moral  attributes,  ma^-  be  a  thing  to  wonder  at ;  but  it 
certainly  is  not  a  being  to  speak  to.  We  maj',  of  course, 
ejaculate  to  such  a  thing,  if  we  like ;  but  we  might  just  as 
well  say  litanies  to  the  winds  or  to  the  ocean.  The  ques- 
tion may  be  safely  left  to  our  utilitarian  instincts.  Time 
and  strength,  after  all,  are  limited  ;  and  we  shall  not,  in  the 
long-run,  spend  "  our  money,"  at  least  in  this  direction,  "  for 
that  which  is  not  bread,  or  our  labor  for  that  which  satisfieth 
not."  1 

>  Isa.  Iv.  2. 


292  Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  God  exists,  whether  we  think  about 
him  or  not ;  if  he  be  not  merely  the  mightiest  force,  the 
first  of  causes,  but  something  more  ;  if  he  be  a  personal 
being,  thinking,  with  no  limits  to  his  thought,  and  willing, 
with  no  fetters  around  his  liberty,  —  then,  surel}',  we  may 
reach  him  if  we  will.  What  is  to  prevent  it?  Cannot  we 
men,  at  our  pleasure,  embody  our  thought,  our  feeling,  our 
desires,  or  purposes,  in  language,  and  so  make  them  pass 
into  and  be  apprehended  by  the  created  finite  personalities 
around  us  ?  Where  is  the  barrier  that  shall  arrest  thought,  , 
longings,  desires,  entreaties,  not  as  yet  clothed  (why  need 
they  be  clothed?)  in  speech,  as  they  mount  up  from  the 
soul  towards  the  all-embracing  intelligence  of  God?  And 
if  God  be  not  merely  an  infinite  Intelligence,  but  a  moral 
Being,  a  mighty  Heart,  so  that  justice  and  mercy  and 
tenderness  are  attributes  of  his  character,  then  to  appeal 
to  him  in  virtue  of  these  attributes  is  assuredly  to  appeal  to 
him  to  some  purpose.  If  an  omnipresent  Intelligence  is  a 
sufl3cient  guaranty  of  his  being  able  to  hear  us,  an  inter- 
est such  as  justice  and  mercy  imply  on  his  part  towards 
creatures  who  depend  upon  him  for  the  original  gift,  and 
for  the  continued  maintenance,  of  life,  is  a  guarant}'  of  his 
willingness  to  do  so. 

ll~is  on  this  ground  that  God  is  said  to  hear  prayer  in     \ 
Holy  Scripture.      That  he   should   do   so  follows  from  the 
reality  of  his  nature  as  God.     Elijah's  iron}'  implies   tliat 
he  is  unlilce  the  Phoenician  Baal  in  being  really  alive. ^    A 
'  1  Kings  xviii.  27- 


of  Religion.  293 

later  psalmist  contrasts  him,  in  like  manner,  with  the 
Ass3Tian  idols,  in  that  "  the}-  have  eyes,  but  see  not:  they 
have  ears,  ])ut  hear  not."^  They  do  but  fill  their  temples 
with  gorgeous  impotence.  But  Israel's  God  is  the  Author 
of  the  very  senses  whereby  we  are  conscious  of  each 
other's  presence  and  wishes,  and  can  enter  into  a  com- 
panionship of  thought  and  purpose.  Is  he  debarred  from 
the  use  of  the  gifts  which  he  himself  bestows  with  so 
bountiful  a  hand?  "He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall  he  not 
hear?  or  he  that  formed  the  eye,  shall  he  not  see?"'^  Is 
it  not,  on  the  contrary,  reasonable  to  believe  that  these 
powers  must  exist  in  a  much  higher  and  more  perfect  form 
in  the  one  Being  who  gives  them  than  in  the  m^-riads 
upon  whom  they  are  bestowed,  and  by  whom  they  are  only 
held  in  trust?  And  if  it  is  improbable,  that,  amid  the 
innumerable  beings  who  are  alive  to  the  sights  and  sounds 
of  his  creation,  the  Cx'eator  alone  should  be  blind  and  deaf, 
is  it  more  probable  that  lie  who  has  implanted  in  our  breasts 
feelings  of  interest  and  pity  for  one  another  should  be  him- 
self insensible  to  our  pain  and  need?  Our  hearts  must 
anticipate  and  echo  the  statement  of  the  Psalmist,  that  God 
does  hear  the  desire  of  the  poor ;  that  the  iiniocent,  the 
oppressed,  the  suffering,  have  especial  claims  upon  him. 
And,  to  omit  other  illustrations,  our  Lord  reveals  him  as  a 
Father,  the  common  Parent  of  men,  of  whose  boundless 
love  all  earthl}'  fatherhood  is  a  shadow  and  a  delegation. 
*  Ps.  cxv.  5.  2  ps.  xciv.  9. 


294         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

If  the  earthly  parent,  being  evil,  does  not  yet  give  a  stone 
when  his  child  cries  for  bread,  the  heavenly  Father  will  not 
fall  short  of  the  teachings  of  an  instinct  which  he  has 
himself  implanted,  by  failing  to  give  the  Hol}^  Spirit  to 
them  that  ask  him.^ 


If   a   man   is   a  good  Theist,  we  need   not   say  a   good 
Christian,  he    must    believe   that   the   Father   of  spirits   is 
not  deaf  to  the  voice  of  the  human  soul ;  that  the  thanks- 
giving and  praise,  the  intercessions  and  supplications,  the 
penitence  and  the  self-surrender,  of  beings  to  whom  he  has 
given  moral  and  intellectual  life,  is  not  utterly'  lost  upon  the 
Giver.     But  will  he  indeed  answer  pra3'er  when  prayer  takes    ? 
the  form  of  a  petition  for  some  specific  blessing  which  must  J 
be  either  granted  or  refused  ?    There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  / 
reply  which  the  Bible  and  the  Church  have  given  to  this 
question.     But  what   do   some   modern  thinkers  sa}'  about    ' 
it?     Do  they  not  deny  the  power  of  i^rayer  by  surrounding 
the  throne  of  God  with  barriers,  which,  as  they  would  liave 
it,  oblige  him,  while  "  the  sorrowful  sighings  of  the  prison- 
ers "  of  this  vale  of  tears  incessantly  "  come  before  him," 
to  make  as  though  he  heard  not,  and  to  shorten  his  hand  as 
if  it  could  not  save  ? 

The  first  presumed  barrier  against  the  efficac}-  of  pra3-er, 

'  Luko  xi.  11-13. 


of  Religion.  295 

to  which  men  point,  is  the  scientific  idea  of  law,  reigning  / 
throughout  the  spiritual  as  well  as  the  material  universe. 
This  idea,  as  we  are  constantl}'  reminded,  is  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  conquests  of  modern  thought ;  and  no  man,  so 
it  is  said,  can  enter  into  it  with  an  intelligent  sj'mpathy, 
without  abandoning  the  fond  conceit  that  God  will  grant  a 
particular  favor  to  one  of  his  creatures  upon  being  asked 
to  do  so.  It  ma^'  have  been  pardonable  to  pray  for  rain, 
for  health,  for  freedom  from  pestilence  and  famine,  when 
these  things  were  supposed  to  depend  upon  the  caprice  of 
an  omnipotent  Will ;  but  the  scientific  idea  of  law  renders  ^ 
these  praj'ers  absurd.  We  know  that  a  shower  is  the 
product  of  atmospheric  laws  which  make  a  shower,  under 
certain  circumstances,  inevitable ;  that  the  death  of  an 
individual  is  the  result  of  ph3'siological  laws  which  abso- 
lutelj^  determine  it.  The  idea  that  a  shower,  or  the  death 
of  a  man,  is  contingent  upon  the  good  pleasure  of  a  Being 
who  can  avert  or  precipitate  them  at  pleasure  is  unscientific  : 
it  belongs  to  days  when  the  idea  of  law  had  not  yet  dawned 
upon  the  intellect  of  civilization,  or  when,  at  any  rate,  large 
margins  of  the  physical  world,  and  the  whole  of  the  spiritual 
world,  were  supposed  to  be  beyond  its  frontiers,  as  being 
abandoned  to  the  government  of  a  capricious  Omnipotence. 
Surel}',  it  is  added,  we  have  really  attained  to  a  nobler  idea 
of  the  universe  than  was  this  old  theological  conception  of 
the  Bible  and  the  Church :  the  superiority  is  to  be  measui'ed 
by  those  fundamental  instincts  of  fitness  within  us,  which 


296  Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

assign  to  law  and  order  a  higher  place  in  our  minds  than  can 
belong  to  a  personal  will. 

Does  not  the  very  word  "  law,"  b}^  reason  of  its  majestic 
and  imposing  associations,  here  involve  us  in  some  indis- 
tinctness of  thought?  What  do  we  mean  by  law?  When 
we  speak  of  a  law  of  Nature,  ai-e  we  thinking  of  some  self- 
sustained,  invisible  force,  of  which  we  can  give  no  account, 
except  that  here  it  is,  a  matter  of  experience?  Or  do  we 
mean  by  a  law  of  Nature  onl}'  a  principle,  which,  as  our 
observation  shows  us,  appears  to  govern  particular  actions 
of  the  almighty  Agent  who  made,  and  who  upholds,  the 
universe?  If  the  former,  let  us  franklj'  admit  that  we 
have  not  merely  fettered  God's  freedom  :  we  have,  alas ! 
ceased  to  believe  in  him.  For  such  self-sustained  force  is 
either  self-originating  (in  which  case  there  is  no  being  in 
existence  who  has  made  all  that  constitutes  this  universe)  ; 
or  otherwise,  having  derived  its  first  impact  from  the 
creative  will  of  God,  this  force  has  subsequently  escaped 
altogether  from  his  control,  so  that  it  now  fetters  his 
liberty ;  and,  in  this  case,  there  is  no  being  in  existence 
who  is  almight}^  in  the  sense  of  being  really  master  of 
this  universe,  jif,  however,  we  mean  by  law  the  observed 
regularity  with  whicli  God  works  in  nature  as  in  grace, 
then,  in  our  contact  with  law,  we  arc  dealing,  not  with 
a  brutal,  unintelligent,  unconquerable  force,  but  with  the 
free-will  of  an  intelligent  and  moral  Artist,  who  works, 
in    his    perfect     freedom,    with     sustained     and    beautiful 


of  Religion.  297 

S3'mmetr3'.  Where  is  the  absurdity  of  asking  him  to  hold 
his  hand,  or  to  hasten  his  work?  He  to  whom  we  pray  may 
be  trusted  to  grant  or  to  refuse  a  praj-er,  as  may  seem  best 
to  the  highest  wisdom  and  the  truest  love.  And,  if  he  grant 
it,  he  is  not  without  resources,  even  although  we  should 
have  asked  him  to  suspend  what  we  call  a  natural  law. 
Can  he  not,  then,  provide  for  the  freedom  of  his  action  with- 
out violating  its  order  ?  Can  he  not  supersede  a  lower  rule 
of  working  by  the  intervention  of  a  higher?  If  he  really 
works  at  all,  if  something  that  is  neither  moral  nor  intelli- 
gent  has  not  usurped  his  throne,  it  is  certain  that  "the 
thing  that  is  done  upon  earth  he  doeth  it  himself;  "  and  that 
it  is,  therefore,  as  consistent  with  reason  as  with  reverence  to 
treat  him  as  being  a  free  Agent,  who  is  not  realty  tied  and 
bouad  by  the  intellectual  abstractions  with  which  finite 
intellects  would  fain  annihilate  the  freedom  of  his  action. 

No :  to  pra}'  for  rain  or  sunshine,  for  health  or  food,  is 
just  as  reasonable  as  to  pray  for  gifts  which  the  soul  only 
can  receive,  —  increased  love,  jo}' ,  peace,  long-suffering, 
gentleness,  goodness,  faith.  All  such  prayers  presuppose 
the  truth,  that  God  is  not  the  slave  of  his  own  rules  of 
action ;  that  he  can  innovate  iipon  his  work  without  for- 
feiting his  perfection  ;  that  law  is  onl}'  our  wa}-  of  conceiv- 
ing of  his  regularized  working,  and  not  an  external  force, 
which  governs  and  moulds  what  we  recog«ize  as  his  work. 
It  dissolves  into  thin  air  as  we  look  hard  at  it,  this  fancied 
barrier  of  inexorable  law  ;  and,  as  the  mist  clears  off,  bej'ond 


298  Prayer^  the  CJiaracteristic  Action 

there  is  the  throne  of  the  moral  King  of  the  universe,  in 
whose  eyes  material  symmetry  is  as  nothing  when  compared 
with  the  spiritual  well-being  of  his  moral  creatures. 

A  second  barrier  to  the  efficacy  of  prayer  is  sometimes 
discovered  in  the  truth,  that  all  which  comes  to  pass  is  fore-  1 
determined  in  the  predestination  of  God.  "How  is  the 
eflScacy  of  prayer  to  be  reconciled,"  asks  the  fatalistic  pre- 
destinarian,  "  with  the  boundless  power  and  knowledge  of 
God  ?  "  Is  not  every  thing  that  happens  to  us  the  decision 
of  an  almight}',  wise,  beneficent  Will,  —  a  Will  which,  in 
human  phrase,  has  ordained  it  from  all  eternity?  Could  this 
Will  have  been,  could  it  be,  other  than  it  is?  Has  time  any 
meaning  for  it?  Is  it  not,  in  its  omniscience  and  omnipo- 
tence, eternally  what  it  is?  AVhere,  then,  is  there  au}^  room 
for  the  effect  of  prayer?  Can  it  be  conceived  that  the 
erring  understanding  and  finite  will  of  the  creature  will  be 
allowed  to  impose  its  decisions  on  the  infallible  mind  and 
resistless  determinations  of  God?  Surely  if  we  are  to  go 
on  pra3'ing,  after  recognizing  the  sovereigat}^  of  God,  we 
must  give  up  the  notion  of  exerting  a  real  influence  upon 
the  divine  Will :  avc  must  content  ourselves  with  resigna- 
tion, with  bringing  our  minds  into  conformit}'  with  that 
which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  quite  be3-ond  the  range  of  our 
influence. 

This  language tdoes  but  carry  us  into  one  department  of 
the  old  controversy  between  the  defenders  of  the  sovereignty 
of  God  on  the  one  side,  and  the  advocates  of  the  free-will 


of  Religion.  '       299 

of  man  on  the  other.  The  very  idea  of  God  as  it  occurs  to 
the  human  mind,  and  the  distinct  statements  of  revelation, 
alike  represent  the  divine  Will  as  exerting  sovereign  and 
resistless  sway.  If  it  were  otherwise,  God  would  not  be 
almighty;  that  is,  he  would  not  be  God.  On  the  other 
hand,  our  daily  experience,  and  the  language  of  Scripture, 
both  assure  us  that  man  is  literally  a  free  agent :  his  free- 
dom is  the  very  ground  of  his  moral  and  religious  responsi- 
bilit}'.  Are  these  two  truths  hopelessly  incompatible  with 
each  other  ?  So  it  may  seem  at  first  sight ;  and  if  we 
escape  the  danger  of  denying  the  one  in  the  supposed 
interests  of  the  other,  if  we  shrink  from  sacrificing  God's 
sovereignty  to  man's  free-will  with  Arminius,  and  from 
sacrificing  man's  freedom  to  God's  sovereignty  with  Calvin, 
we  can  onl}^  express  a  wise  ignorance  by  saying,  that  to  us 
they  seem  like  parallel  lines,  which  must  meet  at  a  point  in 
eternity  far  be^^ond  our  present  range  of  view.  We  do 
know,  however,  that,  being  both  true,  thej-  cannot  really 
contradict  each  other ;  and  that,  in  some  manner  which  we 
cannot  formulate,  the  divine  sovereignty  must  not  merely 
be  compatible  with,  but  must  even  impl^-,  the  perfect  freedom 
of  created  wills.  So  it  is  with  prayer  and  the  divine  pre- 
destination. God  orders  all  that  happens  to  us,  and,  in 
virtue  of  his  infinite  knowledge,  by  eternal  decrees.  But 
he  also  sa3's  to  us,  in  the  plainest  language,  that  he  does 
answer  pra^'er,  and  that  practically  his  dealings  with  us  are 
governed,  in  matters  of  the  greatest  importance,  as  well  as 


300         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

of  the  least,  by  the  petitions  which  we  address  to  him. 
What  if  prayei-s  and  actions  to  us  at  the  moment  perfectly 
spontaneous  are  eternally  foreseen,  and  included  within  the 
all-embracing  predestination  of  God,  as  factors  and  causes, 
working  out  that  final  result,  which,  beyond  all  dispute,  is 
the  product  of  his  good  pleasure?  Whether  I  open  my 
mouth,  or  lift  my  hand,  is,  before  my  doing  it,  strictly 
within  the  jurisdiction  and  power  of  m}'  personal  will ;  but, 
however  I  may  decide,  my  decision,  so  absolntel}'  free  to 
me,  will  have  been  already  incorporated  by  the  all-seeing, 
all-controlling  Being,  as  an  integral  part,  however  insignifi- 
cant, of  his  one,  all-embracing  purpose,  leading  on  to  effects 
and  causes  beyond  itself.  Pi-ayer,  too,  is  only  a  foreseen 
action  of  man,  which,  together  with  its  results,  is  embraced 
in  the  eternal  predestination  of  God.  To  us,  this  or  that 
blessing  may  be  strictly  contingent  on  our  praying  for  it ; 
but  our  prayer  is,  nevertheless,  so  far  from  necessarily 
introducing  change  into  the  purpose  of  the  unchangeable, 
that  it  has  been  all  along  taken,  so  to  speak,  into  account  by 
him.  If,  then,  with  "  the  Father  of  lights  "  there  is,  in  this 
sense,  "no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning,"  it  is 
not,  therefore,  irrational  to  pray  for  specific  blessings,  as  we 
do  in  the  Litany-,  because  God  works  out  his  plans  not 
merely  in  us,  but  by  us ;  and  we  may  dare  to  say  that  that 
which  is  to  us  a  free  self-determination  may  be  not  other 
than  a  foreseen  element  of  his  work. 

A  third  barrier  supposed  to  interfere  with  the  efficacy  of 


of  Religion.  301 

pra3-er  is  the  false  idea  of  the  divine  dignity,  which  is 
borrowed  'from  our  notions  of  human  royalties.  It  is 
assumed  that  a  supreme  governor  cannot  be  expected  to 
take  account  of  trifling  circumstances,  or  to  decide  between 
petty  and  conflicting  claims.  He  legislates  for  the  universe  ; 
but  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  will  also  discharge  all 
the  minute  and  harassing  duties  of  a  local  executive.  The 
power  of  prayer  implies  a  special  providence  ;  and  a  special 
providence,  we  are  told,  is  beneath  the  dignit}^  of  God. 
We  have  already  encountered  this  line  of  thought,  not  in  its 
practical  bearings  upon  prayer,  but  as  it  affects  our  belief  as 
to  the  divine  nature.  "Do  3'ou  imagine,"  men  ask,  "  when 
you  reflect  upon  the  vast  universe  in  which  we  live,  upon 
that  immeasurable  space,  upon  those  innumerable  worlds, 
upon  those  sj'stems  beyond  systems  of  suns  which  are  dis- 
covering themselves  slowly  but  surely  to  our  telescopes, 
that  He  who  made  this  mighty  whole  has  nothing  to  do  but 
to  listen  to  the  little  story  of  your  wants  and  hopes  and 
fears?  He  has  instituted  some  good  and  universal  rules  of 
government  under  which  you  live  :  if  the}'  sometimes  bear 
liai'dly  upon  3'ou,  your  case  is  only  that  of  others,  and  you 
must  take  3-our  chance.  To  expect  him  to  suspend,  or  to 
revoke,  his  legislation  on  3-our  particular  account,  is  to 
sacrifice  common  sense  to  outrageous  egotism,  —  the  egotism 
which  can  suppose  that  a  pett3'  individual  life,  a  worm 
crawling  on  the  surface  of  one  of  his  smallest  planets,  can 
be  an  object  of  this  particular  consideration  and  interest  to 
the  almight}'  Creator." 


302         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

Even  at  the  risk  of  representing  human  egotism,  it  must 
be  here  and  again  asserted,  that  man's  place  in  the  creation 
is  not  determined  by  the  considerations  which  this  objection 
supposes.  In  the  e3'es  of  an  intellectual  and  spiritual 
being,  material  bulk  is  not  the  only  or  the  highest  test  of 
greatness.  If  God  is  not  to  be  supposed  to  be  mainly 
interested  in  vast  accumulations  of  senseless  matter ;  if 
there  be,  in  the  estimate  of  a  moral  being,  other  and 
worthier  measures  of  greatness ;  if  the  organic  be  higher 
than  the  inorganic,  and  that  which  feels,  than  that  which 
hi^s  no  feeling ;  if  that  which  thinks  be  higher  than  that 
which  only  feels,  and  that  which  freely  conforms  to  moral 
will  higher  than  that  which  only  thinlcs ;  if  a  fly  be  really 
a  nobler  thing  than  a  granite  mountain,  and  a  little  child 
than  a  rhinoceros  or  a  mammoth,  —  then  we  need  not 
acquiesce  in  this  depreciatory  estimate  of  man's  place  in 
creation,  or  of  his  claims  upon  the  ear  of  God.  On  his 
bodily  side,  man  is  insignificant  enough.  As  a  spirit  con- 
cious  of  his  own^ existence,  and  determining  his  action  in 
the  freedom  of  his  will,  he  does  not  deceive  himself  in 
believing  that  God  has  crowned  him  with  an  especial  glory 
and  honor  among  the  visible  creatures.^  But,  even  if  man 
were  not  thus  honored,  it  is,  as  we  have  seen,  no  part  of  the 
divine  dignity  to  be  inattentive  even  to  the  lowest  creatures 
of  his  hand.  The  throne  of  heaven  is  not  modelled  upon 
the  type  of  an  Oriental  depotism  ;  and  God's  greatness  is  not 

*  Ps.  viii.  5. 


of  Religion.  303 

compromised  by  the  duties  of  administration  any  more 
than  it  is  heightened  by  the  enactment  of  law.  The  infinite 
Mind  is  not  less  capable  of  formulating  the  most  universal 
principles,  because  he  enters  with  perfect  sj-mpath}-^  and 
intelligence  into  each  of  our  separate  wants  and  efforts, — 
the  wants  and  efforts  of  creatures  who  are  reall}-  greater, 
because  infinitel}"  more  like,  their  Creator,  than  are  the 
largest  stars  and  suns. 

A  fourth  barrier  to  the  efEcacj'  of  prayer  is  supposed  to 
be  discoverable  in  an  inadequate  conception  of  the  interests 
of  human  beings  as  a  whole.  To  suppose  that  God  can 
answer  individual  praj^ers  for  specific  blessings  is  incon- 
sistent, we  are  told,  with  an}'  serious  appreciation  of  human 
interests.  One  man  or  nation  asks  for  that  which  ma}'  be 
an  injury  to  another.  The  Spaniards  pra3ed  for  the  success 
of  their  Armada  :  the  English  prayed  against  it.  Both  could 
not  be  listened  to.  The  weather  cannot  consult  the  con- 
venience of  everj'body  at  once  :  and  therefore  the  specific 
prayers  of  well-meaning  A'illagers,  if  they  could  be  attended 
to,  could  only  be  attended  to  by  a  God,  who,  instead  of 
being  the  Father  of  all  his  creatures,  reserved  special 
indulgences  for  his  favorites. 

Here  it  is  natural  to  remark,  that,  if  God  should  think 
fit  to  grant  a  large  proportion  of  the  particular  requests 
which  would  be  found  among  the  daily  pra3'ers  of  an  earnest 
Christian,  he  would  not,  to  say  the  least,  thereb}'  do  any 
injury   to    others,   whether   they   were    Christians    or  not. 


304         Prayer^  the  Cliaracteristic  Action 

Prayer  for  the  highest  well-being  of  any  human  being  may 
be  gi-antecl  Avithout  damaging  other  human  beings.  If  God 
should  condescend,  in  answer  to  prayer,  to  teach  one  of  his 
servants  more  humility,  purity,  or  love,  this  would  not 
oblige  him  to  withdraw  spiritual  graces  from  an}'  others  in 
order  to  do  it.  Nor  are  other  persons  the  worse  for  coming 
into  contact  with  one  whom  God  has  made  loving,  or  pure, 
or  humble,  in  answer  to  prayer.  Is  it  not  nearer  the  truth 
to  sa}-  that  the}'  are  likely  to  be  much  better ;  and,  therefore, 
that  a  large  number  of  answers  to  prayer  for  personal  bless- 
ings necessarily  extend,  in  their  effects,  bej'ond  those  who 
are  immediately  blessed  ? 

But  observe,  further,  that  every  prayer  for  specific  bless- 
ings in  a  Christian  soul  is  tacitly,  if  not  exprcssl}',  condi- 
tioned. The  three  conditions  which  are  alwaj's  understood 
are  given  at  the  beginning  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  —  "  Hal- 
lowed be  thy  name,  thy  kingdom  come,  th}-  will  be  done." 
In  effect,  these  three  conditions  are  only  one.  If  a  change 
of  weather,  or  a  restoration  to  health,  or  any  blessing,  be 
prayed  for,  a  Christian  petitioner  deliberately  wills  that  his 
prayer  should  be  refused,  supposing  that  to  grant  it  should 
in  any  way  obscure  God's  glory  in  other  minds,  or  hinder 
the  advance  of  his  kingdom,  and  so  contravene  wliat  must 
be  his  will.  Every  Christian  tacitl}'  adds  to  every  prayer, 
"  Nevertheless,  not  my  will,  but  thine,  be  done."  All 
Christian  praj'er  takes  it  for  granted,  first,  that  the  material 
world  exists  for  tlie  sake  of,  and  is  entirely  subordinate  to, 


of  Religion.  305 

the  interests  of  the  moral ;  and,  secondly,  that  God  is  the 
best  judge  of  what  the  true  interests  of  the  moral  world  really 
are.  Therefore,  if  his  specific  petition  is  not  granted,  a 
Christian  will  not  conclude  that  his  real  prayer  is  un- 
answered. His  real  prayer  was,  from  the  first,  that  God's 
name  might  be  hallowed  among  men  by  the  advance  of  his 
kingdom  and  the  doing  of  his  will,  through  God's  granting  a 
particular  request  which  he  urges.  He  knows  that  his  own 
highest  object  may  be  best  secured  by  the  refusal  of  the 
ver}'  blessing  for  which  he  pleads ;  and  he  puts  his  finite 
knowledge  and  his  narrow  sympathies  into  the  hands  of 
infinite  Wisdom  and  infinite  Love,  with  perfect  confidence 
that  the  final  decision  will  be  the  best  answer  to  his  real 
and  deepest  praj-er.  It  is  thus  that  he  realizes  the  promise, 
"  Ever}'  one  that  asketh  receiveth."  He,  too,  receives 
that  which  he  really  wants,  though  his  specific  petition 
should  be  refused, 

A  last  ban-ier  to  faith  in  the  efficacy  of  praj-er  is  really 
to  be  discovered  in  man's  idea  of  his  own  self-sufficiency- 
It  can  scared}-  be  doubted  that  one  of  the  excellences  of 
our  character  as  a  nation  is  constantl}'  a  source  of  danger 
to  our  faith  in  the  power  of  prayer.  Pelagius  was  himself  a 
native  of  Britain  ;  and  the  old  heresy  of  substituting  human 
self-sirfficienc}'  for  dependence  on  the  grace  and  help  of 
God  is  very  congenial  to  the  temper  which  we  English 
cultivate,  with  such  success,  in  individual  action  and  in 
political  life.  After  all,  we  sa}',  do  we  not  depend  on  our 
20 


3o6         Prayer,  the  Characteristic  Action 

own  efforts  for  being  what  we  are,  and  for  doing  what  we 
do?  Whatever  God  may  see  fit  to  do  for  us,  our  best  form 
of  praj-er  is  work :  it  is  the  determination  to  secure  what  we 
want  b}'  personal  efforts  to  get  it.  The  indolent  or  the 
imaginative  ma}'  be  left  to  lengthen  out  their  litanies ;  but 
practical  men  will  fall  back  upon  the  wise  proverb,  that 
"  God  helps  those  who  help  themselves." 

Here,  however,  it  must  be  insisted  on  by  the  one  side, 
and  admitted  on  the  other,  that  manj'  objects  of  prayer  are 
altogether  out  of  the  reach  of  human  effort,  and  that,  if  they 
are  to  be  secured  at  all,  they  must  be  given  freely  b}^  God. 
But  the  fact  of  our  moral  freedom,  as  felt  in  the  capacity 
for  work,  to  which  Pelagianism  appeals,  is  not  more  clear 
than  the  fact  of  our  dependence.  Do  what  we  will,  we 
depend  on  others  :  we  are  linked  to  tliera  b}'  a  thousand 
ties.  We  are,  all  of  us,  acted  upon  most  powerfully  b}''  the 
circumstances  which  surround  us :  the  governing  moods  of 
thought  and  feeling  within  ourselves  are  often  determined 
hy  these  circumstances.  This  is  true  of  "self-made  men," 
as  we  call  them,  not  less  than  of  others.  How  much  did 
not  Farada}'  owe  to  Sir  Humphry  Davy !  And  this  depend- 
ence upon  circumstances  is,  in  fact,  dependence  upon 
things  which  God  controls.  Facts  are  not  less  facts  because 
the}-  seem  to  be  incompatible,  because  the  effort  to  reconcile 
them  teaches  our  reason  that  its  limits  are  narrower  than  we 
wish.  It  is  easier  to  sa}-  that  man  is  entirely  free,  that  he 
depends   on   nothing,    or   to   say   that  man   is  simply   the 


of  Religion.  307 

creature  of  circumstances,  that  he  is  never  really  free,  than 
to  sa}',  what  is  the  real  truth,  that  man  is,  in  his  entire 
freedom,  absolutely  dependent,  that  he  is,  in  his  entire  de- 
pendence, absolutely'  free.  Yet  this  apparent  paradox  is 
the  literal  truth,  which  refuses  to  ignore  facts  in  order  to 
make  the  task  of  reason  easier,  and  to  enable  it  the  better 
to  round  off  its  trenchant  but  inconclusive  theories  about 
human  action.  And,  because,  life  is  so  subtle  an  intermix- 
ture of  dependence  and  action,  praj^er  is  the  most  practical 
of  all  forms  of  work  :  it  is  at  once  the  activity  of  man's 
freedom,  and  the  expression  of  his  dependence ;  and  the 
answer  which  it  wins  is  not  less,  ia  one  sense,  the  result  of 
human  effort,  than,  in  another,  it  is  the  work  of  God. 

And  thus  it  is  in  and  by  pra3er  that  the  two  governing 
elements  of  religious  life,  thought  and  work,  alike  find  their 
strongest  impulse  and  their  point  of  unity.  Such  is  our 
weakness,  that  we  constantly  tend  to  a  one-sided  use  of 
God's  gifts.  We  are  either  absorbingly  speculative  and 
contemplative  on  the  one  hand,  or  we  are  absorbingly 
practical,  and  men  of  action,  on  the  other.  Either  exagger- 
ation  is  fatal  to  the  true  life  of  religion,  which  binds  the  soul 
to  God  by  faith  as  well  as  by  love,  by  love  not  less  than  by 
faith,  by  a  life  of  energetic  service  not  less  truly  than  b}-  a 
life  of  communion  with  light  and  truth.  It  is  in  prayer  that 
each  element  is  at  once  quickened  in  itself,  and  balanced  by 
the  presence  of  the  other.  The  great  masters  and  teachers 
of  Christian   doctrine  have   always   found   in  praj-er   their 


3o8         Frayei\  the  Characteristic  Action 

highest  source  of  illumination.  Not  to  go  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  English  Church,  it  is  recorded  of  Bishop  Andrewes, 
that  he  spent  five  hours  daily  on  his  knees.  The  greatest 
practical  resolves  that  have  enriched  and  beautified  human 
life  in  Christian  times  have  been  arrived  at  in  prayer,  ever 
since  the  day  when,  at  the  most  solemn  service  of  the 
apostolical  Church,  the  Holy  Ghost  said,  "  Separate  me 
Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called 
them,"  ^  It  is  praj'er  which  prevents  religion  from  degener- 
ating into  mere  religious  thought  on  the  one  side,  or  into 
mere  philanthrop}'  on  the  other.  In  praj'er,  the  man  of 
action  will  never  become  so  absorbed  in  his  work  as  to  be 
indifferent  to  the  truth  which  is  its  original  motive.  In 
pra3er,  the  man  of  study  and  contemplation  will  never 
forget  that  ti'uth  is  given,  not  so  much  that  it  ma}'  interest 
and  stimulate  our  understandings,  as  that  it  may  govern  and 
regenerate  our  life.  And  thus  it  is,  that  prayer  is  of  such 
vital  importance  to  the  well-being  of  the  soul.  Study  may 
be  dispensed  with  b}'  those  who  work  with  their  hands  for 
God ;  handiwork  may  be  dispensed  with  by  those  who  seek 
him  in  books  and  in  thought :  but  prayer  is  indispensable, 
alike  for  workers  and  students,  alike  for  scholar  and 
peasant,  alike  for  the  educated  and  the  unlettered  ;  for  we  all 
have  to  seek  God's  face  above :  we  all  have  souls  to  be 
sanctified  and  saved ;  we  all  have  sins  and  passions  to  beat 
back  and  to  conquer.  And  these  things  are  achieved  pre- 
>  Acts  xiii.  2. 


of  Religion.  309 

eminently  by  praj'er,  which  is  properly  and  representatively 
the  action  of  religion.  It  is  the  action  whereby  we  men,  in 
all  our  frailty  and  defilement,  associate  ourselves  with  our 
divine  Advocate  on  high,  and  realize  the  sublime  bond 
which  in  him,  the  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man, 
unites  us  in  our  utter  unworthiness  to  the  strong  and  all- 
holy  God. 

That  prayer,  sooner  or  later,  is  answered,  to  all  who  have 
praj'ed  earnestly  and  constantl}-,  is,  in  different  degrees,  a 
matter  of  personal  exi^erience.  David,  Elijah,  Hezekiah, 
Daniel,  the  apostles  of  Christ,  were  not  the  victims  of  an 
illusion,  in  virtue  of  which  the}'  connected  particular  events 
which  would  have  happened  in  any  case  with  praj-ers  that 
preceded  it.  Thej-  who  never  praj-,  or  who  never  pra}^  with 
the  humility,- confidence,  and  importunity  that  wins  its  way 
to  the  heart  of  God,  cannot  speak  from  exi^erience  as  to  the 
eflfects  of  prayer ;  nor  are  they  in  a  position  to  give  credit, 
with  generous  simplicity,  to  those  who  can.  But  at  least, 
on  such  a  subject  as  this,  the  voice  of  the  whole  compan}-  of 
God's  servants  may  be  held  to  counterbalance  a  few  a  jyriori 
surmises  or  doctrines  ;  and  it  is  the  very  heart  of  human  it}^ 
itself,  which,  from  age  to  age,  mounts  up  with  the  Psalmist 
to  the  eternal  throne,  "  O  thou  that  hearest  prayer,  unto  theel 
shall  all  flesh  come."*  And  Christians  can  penetrate  within' 
the  veil.  They  know  that  there  is  a  majestic  pleading, 
which  for  eighteen  centuries  has  never  ceased,  and  which  is 

»  Ps.  ixv.  2. 


3IO         Prayer^  the  Characteristic  Action 

itself  omnipotent,  —  the  pleading  of  One  who  makes  their 
cause  his  own.  They  rest  upon  the  divine  words,  "  What- 
'soever  ye  shall  ask  the  Fatlier,  in  my  name,  he  will  give  it 
you."i 

A  time  will  probably  come  to  most  of  us,  if  it  has  not 
come  to  some  already,  when  we  shall  wish  that  the  hours  at 
our  command,  during  the  short  day  of  life,  had  not  been 
disposed  of  as  they  have.  After  all,  this  world  is  a  poor 
thing  to  live  for,  when  the  next  is  in  view.  Whatever  be 
their  claims,  created  beings  have  no  business  to  be  sitting 
on  that  highest  throne  within  the  soul  that  belongs  to  the 
Creator.  Yet,  for  all  that,  too  often  they  do  sit  there. 
And  time  is  passing.  Of  that  priceless  gift  of  time,  how 
much  will  one  day  be  seen  to  have  been  lost !  how  ruinous 
shall  we  deem  our  investment  of  this  our  most  precious 
stock !  How  many  interests,  occupations,  engagements, 
friendships, — I  speak  not  of  the  avowed  ways  of  "killing 
time,"  as  it  is  tei'med  with  piteous  accuracy,  —  will  be  then 
regarded  only  as  so  many  precautions  for  building  our  house 
upon  the  sand,  as  onl}-  so  manj'  expedients  for  assuring  our 
failure  to  compass  the  true  end  of  our  existence !  It  may 
not  now  seem  possible  that  we  should  ever  think  thus.  Life 
is  like  the  summer's  day ;  and  in  the  first  fresh  morning  we 
do  not  realize  the  noondaj^  heat ;  and  at  noon  we   do   not 

think  of  the  shadows  lengthening  across  the  plain,  and  of 

« 

the  setting  sun,  and  of  the  advancing  night.     Yet  to  each 
*  John  xvi.  23. 


of  Religion.  311 

and  all  the  sunset  comes  at  last ;  and  those  who  have  made 
most  of  the  day  are  not  unlikely  to  reflect  most  bitterly  how 
little  they  have  made  of  it.  Whatever  else  they  may  look 
back  upon  with  thankfulness  or  with  sorrow,  it  is  certain  that 
they  will  regret  no  omissions  of  duty  more  keenly  than 
neglect  of  prayer ;  that  they  will  prize  no  hours  more  than 
those  which  have  been  passed,  whether  in  private  or  in 
public,  before  that  throne  of  justice  and  of  grace  upon 
which  they  hope  to  gaze  thi'oughout  eternity. 


